Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
446

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
But there is no moral precedence for denying these people equal rights in the eyes of the law.

Only several thousand years of “precedence.” Oh my…

Jesus I have had it with you and that stupid Bible thumping propaganda. Think for yourself instead of letting the goddamn church do it for you.
The same moral precedence that led to the witch trials in Salem, the oppression of science everywhere in the history of the world, and every other progressive measure the world has tried.

Christian precedence has condemned everyone who doesn’t agree with them. You know Zeb, the fucking Earth revolves around the sun. If the Church told you it didn’t, would you believe it?[/quote]

More hate speech from the “open minded” liberals.

447

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do not understand why this is such a big issue. For all the holy men out there, how exactly is your life affected in any way, shape, or form if gays get married?[/quote]

Your assertion is that if our lives are not effected directly then it matters not. If that’s the case then let me ask you some questions:

Why not allow pedophiles to marry children? If you don’t have children then your life is not effected directly.

Why not allow Polygamy? That will not effect your life directly.

Why not allow incest? If an adult brother and sister want to marry that does not effect your life directly.

I do not actually equate any of the above to gay marriage. However, many things can happen in our society that do not on their face effect you directly. Does that mean that we should begin tearing down long standing institutions for a tiny fragment of the population? Nope!

Have you run out of real arguments so soon?

You continue to prove yourself to be out of ammunition. And so soon…

Apparently you have not been keeping up on this thread, at least where my posts are concerned. I love America and the freedom that it gives us. What two (or more) people want to do in the privacy of their own home(s) is their choice. However, that is a far cry from having society sanction it!

Catching on yet?

[quote]Really, what the fuck do you care? All it is a commitment, and legal rights to see the one you love (regardless if its a big hairy dude).

Zeb, it is horrifying how you are simply the epitome of a close minded, anti-gay, christian conservative. I hope heaven is just loaded with fags.[/quote]

And you are the epitome of a closed minded name calling liberal. One who cannot debate a point without relying on the usual round of sterotypical rants. Have I stated that I hate anyone? Of course not! However, the typical liberal slant must be pushed. It goes something like this: “If you don’t want to sanction gay marriage then you hate gays.”

Does that even make sense? If you prefer one methodology do you necessarily hate the other? Use your freaking head and stop swallowing the liberal pabulum.

Is that the best you can do?

No wonder almost 70% of the population are against gay marriage. By the way, do you think there might be some democrats thrown in that 70%? Maybe even some liberal to moderate democrats? Are they closed minded conservatives? No I guess not…

Your arguments are weak!

Now get busy and give me some legitimate reasons why our society should sanction gay marriage. I am really hoping that you can come back to me with some solid arguments.

Have a good day.

:slight_smile:

448

Pedophillia does affect me directly. It makes me furious, and innoncent children are getting taken advantage of and hurt. And it being legal would increase the chances of a pedophile pursuing someone close to me. There are no victims in gay marriage. Both parties are completely autonomous adults capable of making their own decisions. Interesting that you said you did support some gay rights such as hospital visits. But no response to Abunai’s personal experience or my queries as to what rights you actually support and what rights of marriage you would not extend to gays.

449

[quote]ZEB wrote:

No wonder almost 70% of the population are against gay marriage. By the way, do you think there might be some democrats thrown in that 70%? Maybe even some liberal to moderate democrats? Are they closed minded conservatives? No I guess not…

Your arguments are weak!

Now get busy and give me some legitimate reasons why our society should sanction gay marriage. I am really hoping that you can come back to me with some solid arguments.

Have a good day.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

So, I’m wondering where you are getting your statistics. You are still framing it as gay ‘marriage’ where many of the people who support it in a from support civil unions. And I would not at all be surprised if there were more than 30% who supported that. Including some traditional, small-governement conservatives. No one can give you reasons to support gay marriage. Because you either don’t know or haven’t stated your conception of what gay marriage is and what rights should or should not be extended to gays. You want to argue-give a position. It’s not possible to argue some vague, amorphous conecept of ‘marriage’ or respond to some vague rhetoric that some politicians spouted that’s being regurgitated.

450

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Pedophillia does affect me directly. It makes me furious, and innoncent children are getting taken advantage of and hurt. And it being legal would increase the chances of a pedophile pursuing someone close to me. There are no victims in gay marriage. Both parties are completely autonomous adults capable of making their own decisions.[/quote]

How did I know someone would come along and twist my words! I stated clearly that I do not equate any of the examples given (including pedo) with gay marriage.

I set up a series of examples to things that would also not directly effect someones life.

[quote]
Interesting that you said you did support some gay rights such as hospital visits. But no response to Abunai’s personal experience or my queries as to what rights you actually support and what rights of marriage you would not extend to gays.[/quote]

My response in short is this: I think that any law that restricts a good friend or family member from visiting someone in the hospitial is wrong.

451

[quote]ZEB wrote:
My response in short is this: I think that any law that restricts a good friend or family member from visiting someone in the hospitial is wrong.
[/quote]

Well, for security reasons don’t you think the hospital should restrict certain information and certain visiting times to only family members?

Otherwise anyone can have access to medical information and can visit during times that can be reserved to family.

In a gay relationship, the life partner of the patient may be treated with only ‘friend’ rights, and not family.

I can understand why a hospital would restrict certain things to family only; the problem is that the life partner of a gay person is not considered family by law, so therefore he/she does not have as much authority as a straight person’s husband or wife.

452

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

No wonder almost 70% of the population are against gay marriage. By the way, do you think there might be some democrats thrown in that 70%? Maybe even some liberal to moderate democrats? Are they closed minded conservatives? No I guess not…

Your arguments are weak!

Now get busy and give me some legitimate reasons why our society should sanction gay marriage. I am really hoping that you can come back to me with some solid arguments.

Have a good day.

:slight_smile:

So, I’m wondering where you are getting your statistics. You are still framing it as gay ‘marriage’ where many of the people who support it in a from support civil unions. And I would not at all be surprised if there were more than 30% who supported that. Including some traditional, small-governement conservatives. [/quote]

I took the information from a reliable poll performed by Gallup, CNN and USA Today which was completed in April of 2005. Here it is:

“Public opposition to “marriages” between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.”

Those crazy closed minded conservatives! LOL…Oh wait 68% of everyone polled! Let’s reach here and assume that 30% of the (68%) respondents considered themselves “conservatives.” That leaves 70% of the remaining respondents as “non- Conservatives.”

It seems that gay marriage has not caught on with the majority of the populace. Can we assume that people have not embraced this idea because no one has offered any legitimate reasons why such a practice should be sanctioned?

[quote]No one can give you reasons to support gay marriage. Because you either don’t know or haven’t stated your conception of what gay marriage is and what rights should or should not be extended to gays. You want to argue-give a position. It’s not possible to argue some vague, amorphous conecept of ‘marriage’ or respond to some vague rhetoric that some politicians spouted that’s being regurgitated.
[/quote]

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.

453

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
ZEB wrote:
My response in short is this: I think that any law that restricts a good friend or family member from visiting someone in the hospitial is wrong.

Well, for security reasons don’t you think the hospital should restrict certain information and certain visiting times to only family members?

Otherwise anyone can have access to medical information and can visit during times that can be reserved to family.

In a gay relationship, the life partner of the patient may be treated with only ‘friend’ rights, and not family.

I can understand why a hospital would restrict certain things to family only; the problem is that the life partner of a gay person is not considered family by law, so therefore he/she does not have as much authority as a straight person’s husband or wife. [/quote]

I agree for the most part.

Not to stray from the original topic, but I think everyone should have someone “designated” as an individual whom can make life and death decisions and be privy to all medical information, and have visitation rights.

Gay, straight matters not.

In other words, if you are a heterosexual single male who has one or two very close friends you should be able to designate one of them as being a “significant other” or whatever term you choose. Point being they are able to visit you just as a spouse would.

Make any sense?

454

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.

[/quote]

You make baby Thomas Jefferson cry…

455

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.

[/quote]

What is ‘gay marriage’? And what should those in it not be allowed to do? You haven’t said. I appreciate your stance on the hospital issue. Now, what other rights do you think should or shouldn’t be had by gay people in respect to their partners?

456

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Not to stray from the original topic, but I think everyone should have someone “designated” as an individual whom can make life and death decisions and be privy to all medical information, and have visitation rights.

Gay, straight matters not.

In other words, if you are a heterosexual single male who has one or two very close friends you should be able to designate one of them as being a “significant other” or whatever term you choose. Point being they are able to visit you just as a spouse would.

Make any sense?
[/quote]

Well, I suppose so. So, as a practical matter how would you contol this? Married people do this by virtue of being married. Presumably, if civil unions were allowed, it would be the same deal. How should this be accomplished for just a friend? Carry around an ID card that says you fit this role for a specified person? How would the role and ID card be granted? A special ceremony?

457

[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.

You make baby Thomas Jefferson cry…[/quote]

Word is, he had lots of babies…and not all by his wife.

458

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Pedophillia does affect me directly. It makes me furious, and innoncent children are getting taken advantage of and hurt. And it being legal would increase the chances of a pedophile pursuing someone close to me. There are no victims in gay marriage. Both parties are completely autonomous adults capable of making their own decisions.

How did I know someone would come along and twist my words! I stated clearly that I do not equate any of the examples given (including pedo) with gay marriage.

I set up a series of examples to things that would also not directly effect someones life.

Interesting that you said you did support some gay rights such as hospital visits. But no response to Abunai’s personal experience or my queries as to what rights you actually support and what rights of marriage you would not extend to gays.

My response in short is this: I think that any law that restricts a good friend or family member from visiting someone in the hospitial is wrong.
[/quote]

Well, I feel that predophila does affect me directly in that it is an unquestionably wrong act because it hurts and takes advantage of an innocent and immature child. If murder was legal, it might not directly affect me either, but it doesn’t mean it’s still not wrong. Acting on being gay is [arguably] ‘wrong’ but it doesn’t hurt anyone. There are no victims as I said. That’s not the case for pedophillia. But your other examples are more somewhat more apt. As far as polygamy goes, if it’s a cultural matter (ie. Mormon’s) and all parties are aware, I don’t have a problem with it. But it’s just Joe Schmo who want’s to have two wives and they don’t know about each other, then there are victims and there is a harm. Adminastratively, I think it would be difficult to limit it to cultures and religions that believe in it. This would become a blanket defense. The same issue does not result for monogomous gay civil unions. There’s no complications of who they should or not apply to. They should apply to any gay who wants them. On its face, I’m tempted to say that incest should be allowed if both parties are enter it with full knowledge. I don’t think there’s many people fucked up enough to want to engage in it, and if two find each other, are they really hurting anyone? Well, they are likely hurting people beyond there immediate family in a way gay people don’t and not through some vague offending of values and morals that are not shared by everybody. The high risk of birth defects from children between brother and sister constitute a discrete, definable social cost to society if it comes to pass. A burden may well fall on society to take care of such children. And there’s hardly a referundum for polygamy and incest among Americans. If by your own statistics, 32% of the population support ‘gay marriage’ that’s not an unsizeable minority. And it’s questionable how that’s even defined. If it was a simple legal matter and limited to civil unions, support easily could be higher.

459

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.

You make baby Thomas Jefferson cry…

Word is, he had lots of babies…and not all by his wife.[/quote]

Yeah. And Sally Hemmings was pretty damn hot. Or at least Thandie Newton, the actress who played her, is.

460

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I set up a series of examples to things that would also not directly effect someones life.
[/quote]

But with two of your examples (incest, pedophilia) somebody does get hurt, not merely effected (sic). So there is perfectly good reason to exclude these things in law. Bestial nuptials can’t fly either because chattel cannot enter into contracts. Nor can toasters.

That leaves you with polygamy, and polyandry, of course. And homosexual unions. These are all excluded purely on the basis of cultural tradition.

I give up, what was the matter with polygamy? You sure can’t say it’s not traditional.

As for what benefits homosexual unions would bring to society at large, you were told that it could increase and facilitate adoptions. After boffling on against the fact that there are huge numbers of orphans unspoken for in this country, you rather heartlessly took the position that any orphans that might be adopted into these unions were better off left in institutions and temporary foster situations.

461

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I took the information from a reliable poll performed by Gallup, CNN and USA Today which was completed in April of 2005. Here it is:

“Public opposition to “marriages” between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.”

Those crazy closed minded conservatives! LOL…Oh wait 68% of everyone polled! Let’s reach here and assume that 30% of the (68%) respondents considered themselves “conservatives.” That leaves 70% of the remaining respondents as “non- Conservatives.”

It seems that gay marriage has not caught on with the majority of the populace. Can we assume that people have not embraced this idea because no one has offered any legitimate reasons why such a practice should be sanctioned?

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.

[/quote]

Of course most’ve the country would vote against gay marriage. Have you not noticed the discrimination towards gays in this country? I’ll freely admit to using the term fag in a derogatory manner. It was accepted practice throughout my childhood and beyond. The anti-gay sentiment in our country should not be a reason to prevent gay marriage. You are biased, that you cannot realize this only furthers my thoughts that the bible-thumping right extremists have a hard time viewing issues from an objective viewpoint.

462

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Apparently, I am in good (and large) company as the fringe left (those behind the promotion of gay marriage) have not given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government. Perhaps there are none.
[/quote]

I thought there have been far more valid reasons for than against posted on this thread.

You just seemed to quickly point out the poor responses and respond to them.

Just because someone gives a few poor arguments about a subject does not mean his/her position on the subject is wrong.

463

[quote]slimjim wrote:

There is discrimination in this country against all sorts of people who are different, and it’s sick!

Not allowing gays to marry is not discrimination in my opinion, as it does not meet the definition.

That’s a shame, I hope you know better now!

I’m not so sure if it’s “anit-gay” or just anti-gay marriage. I think if you check the polls no one has a problem with what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Changing the definition of marriage is where the problem begins.

And you are not paying attention to the thread! I just posted a legitimate poll which indicates that 68% of all Americans are against gay marriage. Are they all “bible thumping right extremists?”

The only person showing biased is you! You are apparently biased against conservatives. And the fact that you ignored a poll done in April of this year proves it!

Shame on you! Open your mind!

464

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:

Ahhh, just farted, and it smells like a liberal…[/quote]

So what your saying is, you were recently nailed in the ass by a liberal?

465

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you are not paying attention to the thread! I just posted a legitimate poll which indicates that 68% of all Americans are against gay marriage. Are they all “bible thumping right extremists?”
[/quote]

I wasn’t polled. How can you be sure that 68% of “ALL AMERICANS” are against gay marriage?

I can see that number being accurate if the surveys were being held at churches.