[quote]ZEB wrote:
3 to 1 against gay marriage in the latest state referendum! Another article (Several days after the election) stated that 76% of all voters were against gay marriage.
[/quote]
You should ask yourself what were the figures 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and where this likely leads 10 years from now. Those figures spewed out to illustrate current general [and unsure] attitudes are not proving if gay marriage is right or wrong. More concern should be directed at lying baffoons voted in office whose policies continually chip away at world stability.
Nothing that you have stated factually indicates that marriage is by definition something that should remain between a man and a woman only.[/quote]
You are confused (again). It is up to you to make a case for changing this 5000+ year old institution. So far there has been no legitimate argument for doing so. Otherwise the overwhelming majority of people would not still be against two homosexuals marrying.
Keep in mind it is you that took this debate to groups of people wanting gay marriage. It is I who took you up on it and pointed out the overwhelming evidence to show that most don’t want gay marriage-Do you want to change the subject now? Fine with me, we can do that…
I’m well aware that opinions can change over time. And when social liberals like yourself present a logical argument as to why there should be gay marriage then it will in fact change.
One way that it could change is if there is conclusive proof that being gay is in fact 100% genetic.
[quote]Here’s something else that’s interesting:
Now, it seems that the ruling in the above case goes along with your argument, but it introduces a problem in the definition of what is a “man” and what is a “woman”.
Is it just about penises and vaginas and anal sex? I mean, it makes little sense that a person can legally change their gender from male to female… (just look at their driver’s license) and still not be able to marry?
Even weirder still, can this transsexual be allowed to marry someone that was the same birth sex?[/quote]
I agree that is ONE very different case. Maybe it’s time that we have special laws for transsexuals? Maybe not…
It’s already been won-You simply have to look at the many states that voted it down by referendum. The people do not want gay marriage. Now give us some good reaons to change our minds.
Here’s a crazy idea, but it just might work. Why don’t we all go with the gender we were born with? Oh…sorry.
I don’t think that you are anymore confused than most social liberals
[quote]Sometimes when children are born, they are hermaphroditic in nature, or they simply do not have identifiable genitalia, or they are born with genitals that are the opposite to what their chromosomes have indicated “should” be there.
In many cases doctors have misassigned their gender and men have grown up to be women when in reality they had one X and one Y choromosome (denoting, genetically, that they “should” have been a man)–so what happens then?
They have grown up believing and acting and being supported as being one gender, having been equipped through surgery and hormone therapy with the right biological components, and yet, genetically, they are not who they were “originally” meant to be. Society said they were a man. But society was wrong. Or was it?
How do we protect their rights? How do we ensure that these people, who have through no fault of their own been led to believe that they were one gender but are now something else, has as much of a chance to be granted the same rights and freedoms as everyone else?
Are previous marriages to be rendered null and void because it is discovered that there is a discrepancy between each partners chromosomes? Or is the genitals that we should be paying attention to?
What is the exact definition of a man?
What is the exact definition of a woman?
IS NOT MUCH OF THAT DEFINITION BASED ON BEHAVIOUR?
So, if you grew up as a man, ZEB, how sure can you be that most of your manliness is dictated genetically versus a learned behaviour from other men that you have happened to observe while growing up?
How do you know? Sure, ZEB, you may be a real smart person, able to just look at what’s going on downstairs and tell, but not everyone is born with that luxury.[/quote]
I agree, but still don’t see why this is an argument for gay marriage. It seems more an argument for some sort of better Med school training or something along those lines. Please tell me you are not going to try to make this an argument for gay marriage. You are not are you? Come on are you? Oh my…
Oh no you are going to try that… (shaking head)
I’m not a strong Biology guy, but I’m going with gender being determined by chromosones.
[quote]I grow tired of the lack of foresight people such as yourself display. And if you want to talk about just how effective giving voters the opportunity to decide things, will all the problems disappear just because they define marriage as being one man, one woman: NO NO NO!
In fact, as the lengths of my posts and numbers of my examples can testify, the problems will only continue to multiply for such a shallow and unenlightened definition of marriage, despite what common sense would dictate.[/quote]
I grow a tired of people, such as yourself, who display such weak logic. In this case you want to take an infinitesimal example of some sort of mistake at birth and turn it into a reason to sanction gay marriage.
I would wager that every reader will recognize the weakness of your pro gay marriage argument with this one.
In fact, you have won the award for the silliest reason to sanction gay marriage!
Congrats man!
You went on a very long and fruitless fishing trip. Everyone knows that the exception does not justify the rule! Come on you have got to be kidding!
This liberal logic at it’s very worst!
Abortion is a good example. Social liberals (appealing to the masses) will tell you that we have to protect the rights of the mother in cases of rape or incest. Ah yes…that is an important EXCEPTION. However, about 98%+ of all abortions are for convenience sake. Hmm…so much for the exception huh?
Could it be that we could simply have limited abortion laws where mothers are protected from giving birth through rape or incest? Um…no that would not fit the liberal agenda would it?
Now, you come along and tell us that because .000001% (or some such tiny fraction) of people might be born with a birth defect we have to sanction gay marriage. That is a stunningly classical liberal misrepresentation!
Just when I thought that the pro gay marriage argument could not get any weaker JimmyTango jumps in with his or her (who knows maybe there was a mistake at birth I don’t know what you are…I’m now looking up at the sun and feeling all enlightened 15 T-Nation posts, all on the gay marriage thread, furhter demonstrating the weakness of the pro gay marriage crowd!
Good Job, and I thank you.
The first thing that you need in order to sanction gay marriage in the USA is a really good reason. One would do, but more is better. So far you have not come up with that. And while you hate to read it-Most people agree that there is no reason for this dramatic change to our society.
Also, keep in mind that the Bush Supreme Court, which grows more conservative with every pick, will probably not look all that kindly toward gay marriage. After all it was a liberal Supreme Court that legalized abortion. Is turn about fair play in this case? I guess it will have to be.
(And I predict that Bush will get to choose a third Justice before his term ends!)
Oh… and keep in mind that lawsuits work both ways.
How, exactly do you know what the homosexuals want? Is it possible they really don’t care about the acceptance of superstitious worshippers of archaic, badly written books?
More Bible (Christian) bashing. Interesting, that we have huge thread and most of the ignorant hateful comments come from the social liberals. Those who are open to gay marriage, but quite narrow minded, closed and hatefilled to certain religions.
This could be one reason (and only one) why your side is losing this particular debate!
okay, maybe you’re right: explain how religion is different than superstition. Then, please explain why what YOU believe should have any impact on other people’s lives.
I can debate the gay marriage issue without name calling. No derogatory names against gays. Do you know why? Because they are people who are deserving of our love and understanding. The fact that I might disagree on the gay marriage issue does not turn me into a hate filled closed minded moron.
Now tell me that if you try really hard you can be as understanding of people of faith!
Then again if I have to explain to you why it’s wrong to ridicule someone else’s faith then someone failed to raise you properly.
And it’s most likely to late for anyone to even attempt to change you, especially on a message board.
[/quote]
The reason I ridicule someone else’s faith is because it’s…ridiculous.
YOUR faith is not sacred to me. The fact that you believe in fairy tales with no reason, rationality, or proof to back them up in a day and age where men have walked on the moon is ridiulous.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Um, you’re mocking the NAACP? The oldest Civil Rights organization in the United States? Just because it’s liberal?[/quote]
I’m mocking it’s obvious liberal slant. And the fact that you have tried to use it to indicate that all Black people are pro gay marriage when in fact they are not!
I’m sure there are people of every race who want to sanction gay marrige in the US. However, my point which has escaped you (again) is that MOST Black people do not want gay marriage! In fact, most people of every race do not want gay marriage.
You can cite all of the NAACP articles that you like-It’s simply another liberal organization attempting to steer America to the left.
Yea…like the sort of logic that you used in claiming that some people are born not knowing if they are male or female. Therefore, we need to legalize gay marriage…yea…good logic Mr. JimmyTango
By the way, quoting national polls are every bit as legitimate as you quoting the NAACP- No actually, more legitimate as I have already shown.
[quote]use a source that backs up what you state directly, without using playground logic such as, “I have to assume that Black America is better represented in this particular poll than by the (laughing right now) NAACP!”
You are still making wild and basesless assumptions with these numbers you throw around.[/quote]
No actually I think that you are making wild assumptions by quoting the NAACP and then automatically thinking that ALL or even the majority of Black Americans agrees. How foolish!
Yes, so why then do you think that the NAACP holds any sway? LOL, you seem to be trapped by your own example.
Either public opinion via polls and organizations has merit or it does not-Which is it?
You first took this debate (between you and I) to that level in citing NAACP stats. I then countered with legitimate polls taken by USA Today and Gallup to counter your silly NAACP claims.
Now you don’t like the direction that YOU have taken the debate? Okay, move in another direction maybe you will have better luck.
All true! Therefore, everything that once was should be changed? What logic is there in that statement?
Should we rush out to change all things that “used to be?”
Which laws do you want to start with after gay marriage? Tell me…tell us all.
You seem to “bat an eyelash” at the NAACP’s opinion. Must be you like what they said huh? Oh well…
You need a “definitive logical reason” to change the status quo, and you don’t have one! And the further you go to try to find one the worse you are making your side look.
You also need to tell me why other tiny minority groups (such as gays) should not have special rights as well.
Why can’t Polygamists and those who participate in adult incest marry? Are they sub human in your opinion? Come on let me know.
When you answer regarding the two above I will have two more for you. And two more after that. I want to know why everyones “rights” should not be looked after.
No, actually I brought that up because you attacked my credibility. Please scroll back and pay attention (to what you are posting at least). In attacking my credibility you were attempting to personalize the debate as you cannot win it on facts, as there are none to legalize gay marriage.
The fact that you signed onto the best muscle building site on the Internet in order to engage strictly in a pro homosexual marriage thread debate I find odd. And I think that most would find it odd.
Either that or you have been involved in other threads (or this particular thread) under other names on this very site. You might have a reason to switch names… This is the Internet and that’s been done to death-But not by me! Does that give me more credibility?
Oh I think it has great consequence indeed!
By posting more liberal sources you simply prove that the only people that want to change the gay marriage laws are…LIBERALS! Following that okay?
The next thing you will be telling me is that “GLAAD” is pro gay marriage. You see in order to expand your point you have to give me facts and opinions from sources that are outside of the mainstream left wing. The readers can already guess that left wing institutions are probably going to be for gay marriage. Some are even for lowering the age of consent. Oh …that’s another debate never mind.
You have already proven your inability to argue coherently by your pitiful use of transexuals and birth gender confusion for a reason to sanction homosexual marriage. Honestly, I’m still laughing at that one.
[quote]Vegilles wrote:
ZEB wrote:
3 to 1 against gay marriage in the latest state referendum! Another article (Several days after the election) stated that 76% of all voters were against gay marriage.
You should ask yourself what were the figures 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and where this likely leads 10 years from now. Those figures spewed out to illustrate current general [and unsure] attitudes are not proving if gay marriage is right or wrong.
[/quote]
Actually, gay marriage was more popular 5 to 10 years ago. There is a strange (or not so strange) phenomenon occurring here in the US. The more people here about, read about and think about gay marriage, the LESS they like it!
I agree that pubbic opinions do not “prove” or “disprove” anything. But I think that the pro gay marriage crowd needs desperately to find at least one good reason FOR gay marriage, which so far they have been unable to do.
The reason I ridicule someone else’s faith is because it’s…ridiculous.
YOUR faith is not sacred to me. The fact that you believe in fairy tales with no reason, rationality, or proof to back them up in a day and age where men have walked on the moon is ridiulous.[/quote]
And you cannot see that by insulting someones faith you are insulting them?
No more ignorant than me stating that being gay is just stupid…(or any other derogatory put down).
It is insensitive and ignorant. Do all Atheists regale in this sort of behavior? It seems that they do here on T-Nation.
You have requested that the pro-same-sex-marriage supporters produce at least one good reason that the institution of marriage be changed.
I’m assuming that the reason would have to include why it would be better for society as a whole rather than just for the betterment of the couple involved. Am I right in thinking this?
What do you feel are the advantages to society provided by the current institution of marriage?
The typical family unit of one man-one woman seems to be the basis upon which much of our society and civilization is founded, but what are the particular attributes, of the female-male partnership in marriage, that provide these advantages?
I ask this, so that I have a better understanding of what you would view as an improvement in our society.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Vegilles wrote:
ZEB wrote:
3 to 1 against gay marriage in the latest state referendum! Another article (Several days after the election) stated that 76% of all voters were against gay marriage.
You should ask yourself what were the figures 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and where this likely leads 10 years from now. Those figures spewed out to illustrate current general [and unsure] attitudes are not proving if gay marriage is right or wrong.
Actually, gay marriage was more popular 5 to 10 years ago. There is a strange (or not so strange) phenomenon occurring here in the US. The more people here about, read about and think about gay marriage, the LESS they like it!
I agree that pubbic opinions do not “prove” or “disprove” anything. But I think that the pro gay marriage crowd needs desperately to find at least one good reason FOR gay marriage, which so far they have been unable to do.[/quote]
The fact that you do not realize that anyone who loves their spouse/partner be they the same sex, different sex, or blue alien from Pluto deserves all the legal benefits of marriage such as hosptial visitation, tax breaks, inheritance issues such as passing onto [presumably adopted] children is a good reason for civil unions does not make it untrue. No one has thought of a feasible way of making these things possible without recognizing civil unions.
I don’t know how the gay community at large feels about the issue, but I did see Rosie O’Donnell on Larry King King, and she said said that if the legal rights were attained she could care less about it being church-sanctioned or termed ‘marriage’. Your arugument is that tradition and the Bible views marriage as between a man and woman. And that is fine. But apparently a large percentage of those who want legal rights for themselves and those who support this have no desire to ‘infringe’ on this.
The only argument against legal rights for those individuals is that they are inferior because of their orientation and not entitled to the same constiutional protection and legal rights of the rest of Americans. It is exactly the same argument that has been advanced time and time again in countless cultures and civiliations [insert race or religion for orentation], and forutnately, it lost out much of the time.
Here is an argument for society as a whole: we are better off as a nation and in keeping with our principles of liberty and equality when every non-criminal citizen has the same legal rights.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is a strange (or not so strange) phenomenon occurring here in the US. The more people here about, read about and think about gay marriage, the LESS they like it!
I agree that pubbic opinions do not “prove” or “disprove” anything. But I think that the pro gay marriage crowd needs desperately to find at least one good reason FOR gay marriage, which so far they have been unable to do.[/quote]
Keep in mind that other parts of the world have progressed beyond this debate and gay marriages are legal - So far those nations haven’t descended into anarchy and obliteration.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
The fact that you believe in fairy tales with no reason, rationality, or proof to back them up in a day and age where men have walked on the moon is ridiulous.[/quote]
How is your rationality/putdowns over gay marriages any different than those who are against inter-racial marriages/unions in this day and age where men have walked the moon?
[quote]Vegilles wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There is a strange (or not so strange) phenomenon occurring here in the US. The more people here about, read about and think about gay marriage, the LESS they like it!
I agree that pubbic opinions do not “prove” or “disprove” anything. But I think that the pro gay marriage crowd needs desperately to find at least one good reason FOR gay marriage, which so far they have been unable to do.
Keep in mind that other parts of the world have progressed beyond this debate and gay marriages are legal - So far those nations haven’t descended into anarchy and obliteration.
[/quote]
No where on this or any other thread have I stated that we would
“descend into anarchy and obliteration.” However, that clever use of hyperbole is standard for most arguments touted by liberals.
The fact that you do not realize that anyone who loves their spouse/partner be they the same sex, different sex, or blue alien from Pluto deserves all the legal benefits of marriage such as hosptial visitation, tax breaks, inheritance issues such as passing onto [presumably adopted] children is a good reason for civil unions does not make it untrue.[/quote]
You have taken the grand daddy of all leaps in logic! Since I am against two homosexuals marrying does not mean that I do not accept the fact that they love each other.
I never once stated on this or any other thread that gay folks don’t love their significant other as much as one can love someone of the opposite sex.
Hold on…I just want to get a mental picture of the two: Rosie on Larry King…okay…
I have no idea of rosie’s spiritual beleifs. However, her opinion means even less to me than the NAACP when it comes to gay marriage.
Let me respectfully rephrase that so that it is completely correct:
“One” argument against gay marriage is that tradition and the Bible view marriage as between one man and one woman. There are many other arguments aginst gay marriage. However, there is still not one good (as in high quality) reason FOR gay marriage.
Well that’s good.
They in fact have the same legal rights as anyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want are “special rights.”
(Hey…dajavu…all over again…)
[quote] It is exactly the same argument that has been advanced time and time again in countless cultures and civiliations [insert race or religion for orentation], and forutnately, it lost out much of the time.
[/quote]
Well, as you know race and gender are not “behaviors.”
I want to know where we stop once we begin special rights for certain behaviors. When you equate behavior with race and gender you insult those who really are (factually) born that way!
How many behaviors can you name? Where would you like to draw the line?
Behavior: comportment, conduct. Actions in general or on a particular occasion.
One more time: Race and gender are not a behavior!
Thank you for your thoughts- I’m afraid we just disagree.
You have requested that the pro-same-sex-marriage supporters produce at least one good reason that the institution of marriage be changed.
I’m assuming that the reason would have to include why it would be better for society as a whole rather than just for the betterment of the couple involved. Am I right in thinking this?
What do you feel are the advantages to society provided by the current institution of marriage?
The typical family unit of one man-one woman seems to be the basis upon which much of our society and civilization is founded, but what are the particular attributes, of the female-male partnership in marriage, that provide these advantages?
I ask this, so that I have a better understanding of what you would view as an improvement in our society.
Cheers,
Soup[/quote]
If homosexuality is ever proven to be 100% genetic, as the pro gay marriage people currently tout, (but with no proof), then I think I would have to reassess my current stance on gay marriage. And I think other fair minded Americans would that as well.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No where on this or any other thread have I stated that we would
“descend into anarchy and obliteration.” However, that clever use of hyperbole is standard for most arguments touted by liberals.
[/quote]
Are you kidding? Look at the near bursting point of this thread! If you don’t think more than a few here fear doomsday for mankind regarding gay marriage being legalized you’re on a different tangent.
Zeb, you’re still completely failing to recognize the distinction between civil unions and gay marriage. Gay marriage is not something most of the people advocating civil unions care about. I give up on you.
Are you kidding? Look at the near bursting point of this thread! If you don’t think more than a few here fear doomsday for mankind regarding gay marriage being legalized you’re on a different tangent.
[/quote]
I have no idea what others think about the eventual outcome of society if gay marriage were allowed. However, I never stated that society would “descend into anarchy and obliteration.” I just wanted to be clear about that.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you’re still completely failing to recognize the distinction between civil unions and gay marriage. Gay marriage is not something most of the people advocating civil unions care about. I give up on you.[/quote]
Don’t give up on me! (flashing back to Little League Baseball Coach
I think we had this discussion a few weeks ago. Do you remember?
Zeb and others. Legal rights should be extended to everyone who feels themselves bound to another person. This is not a special right. Everyone would have the exact same right. Conceptualizing it as only pertaining to a union with the opposite sex is just as arbitrary and as much a cultural and societal construction as conceptualizing it as a union with a loved partner of either sex. Homosexuality is a status. Acting on it is a behavior unlike race and gender.
But I do not see it as a behavior that should be forbidden or any reason why the same legal rights should be granted to those couples. Feeling love for a women is a status and state of being. Expressing it and making a commitment (sexually and otherwise) is a behavior.
At bottom, you feel that engaging homosexual behavior is wrong to a degree that legal rights recognizing their commitment to each other should not be extended to those couples. IF the bible and a religious conception of marriage are taken out of the equation, that is the only justification for denial of those legal rights. You and others don't condone or accept that behavior or you would see no reason why those who subjectively feel themselves to be as committed as straight people in every way should not be entitled to the same legal rights.
