I think you question is answered therein. I also think your question was answered on this thread (or maybe the other) but it’s pretty much the same thing.
If you are feeling better and can find that old post. We could continue the conversation we were having last week (or so). If I remember correctly, the interesting part of your beliefs is that you do see societal benefits of homosexual marriage and do see homosexuals as being able to be competent and capable parents, but don’t see this as meeting the “standard” of benefit heterosexual marriage. Many of those arguing with you would deny those things.
Have a good one. If you like the article we could discuss it as well. [/quote]
Ironically, Olsen didn’t make the conservative case for gay marriage. He made the therapeutic case for gay marriage as a card carrying Republican.
He sticks to the same themes - it’s a matter of civil rights equality (it’s not) and that it is just the next stairstep on the path to progress with African-American civil rights being the last stairstep (it’s not, and not even close), and that straight marriage won’t be negatively impacted by gay marriage (it will, because it will join other factors to continue de-legitimizing marriage as anything special or crucial in society), but mostly…if we don’t pass gay marriage, we demean the value of gay relationships, and that’s mean-spirited (it’s not for all kinds of reasons, just like college students are demeaned by not having their health care resolved through Medicare subsidies/benefits).
So, Olsen is plowing old ground, and he isn’t making the “conservative” case for marriage. And, he is incorrect. In short, everything Olsen has attempted in this article has been addressed in this (and many other) thread(s).
Kinda weird that the only arguments against gay marriage MOST people actually know about come from Bible-thumping, mullet-growing rednecks on street corners.[/quote]
An excellent point, and that probably deserves a thread of its own - self-professed “open minded” “progressives” have, in my epxerience, been some of the most cocooned, most narrow-minded, and most resistant-to-ideas individuals I have come across. There are plenty of people on the right side of the spectrum with these faults, but the problem with the “progressives” is the added wage of hypocrisy - they preach daily about the importance of “diversity of thought” and “open mindedness”, etc. - but they’ll be damned before they practice any of it themselves.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is not a conservative / liberal issue , it is a mind your own business or not issue [/quote]
Marriage is not “your own business”. It’s a relationship officially recognized by the State.
As soon as you ask the right to marry, your business becomes we the people’s business.
Everyone business.
So the “mind your own business” side may no be the one you were thinking about.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Let’s turn this on its head for just a moment here. Gay marriage proponents, please explain, using concise, unambiguous language, WHY, exactly, do homosexual unions deserve to be rewarded with the significant legal and monetary privileges, benefits, and equivalence of status that married heterosexual couples enjoy?
Our side has provided the answer and specifics to this question ad nauseum, and only the most brain dead gay marriage proponents have dared to suggest that our reasons are anything other than rational and viable.
So, let’s have it. What is it that makes gay marriage so great? There must be something that sets it above other relationships and on “equal” footing with heterosexual marriage. What is it? Enquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
Uhh… Wasn’t it explained several times to you?
Homosexual couples can provide stables homes for children.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Sloth, Cortes and TB: interesting stuff.
As intellectually awkward as it is for me to reconcile what I find to be compelling, logical points with my initial POV on the issue (and continuing emotional inclination to stick to my guns), I gotta admit you guys have a great perspective on the debate.
Kinda weird that the only arguments against gay marriage MOST people actually know about come from Bible-thumping, mullet-growing rednecks on street corners.
Your argument actually makes sense.[/quote]
What do you find compelling?
I want to hear it. What’s happened here is that AC doesn’t know the gay marriage argument very well so the anti-gay marriage folk jumped on him pretty hard.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I tried skimming through this latest thread but got lost somewhere in the middle. So I apologize if this was addressed.
A couple of random thoughts:
-Why are both sides essentially talking past one another? In this thread and the other one arguments and counterarguments were made. Yet it seems both sides are ignoring the other and claiming that “no argument was made.” You may find their arguments to be flat, but it seems silly to argue they are non-existent.
-It seems the “anti-gay marriage” group is arguing that religion is not playing a role in their “rational” arguments and that they are completely secular. Yet it does stand out to me that the vast majority of those against homosexual marriage consider themselves religious. Not all, most.
For what it is worth, as stated on many threads but just in case anyone cares:
-I do support gay marriage and the full inclusion of homosexuals into society
[/quote]
I am ok with them having some sort of recognition of a union, but a marriage it is not. Anybody whose ever been married knows that the marital relationship between a male and female is the most unique of all relationships. It doesn’t matter how people feel about each other, or how in love people are, the fact remains it’s not a marriage, period.
I am not against people doing what they want, with whom they want. I am opposed to calling things what they are not.
Union of some sort it may be, a “marriage” it is not.
If you want the government to recognize your union, fine, but don’t call it a marriage, because that’s not what it is.
I don’t have a problem with the ‘shared rights’ thing. You want to pull the plug on your partner, go ahead. You want a tax break, don’t care.
It should be put into proper prospective and discussed truthfully or not at all. What a don’t want is political stances being taken by a teacher and forced on the students. This issue is now so politicized, I don’t know if fair treatment of the matter can be had.
I think we are over exposed as it is… Why are we forced to discuss other people’s sexual lives if they are gay. Strait people don’t do this, I don’t know why gays feel the need to discuss their gayness with anybody and everybody. It seems a little weird to me. I don’t put a sticker on my car that says ‘I like pussy’ or an “I like pussy” flag. Not sure why they feel the need to advertise they like cornhole.
I don’t think people should be recognized on their preference of sexual activity, that’s a private matter. I don’t need to know your “Joe the homosexual”, just “Joe” is sufficient.
I am against calling it a marriage, I don’t care about the rest. It’s not a marriage. Gay people who have done both acknowledge it’s not the same. Part of what makes marriage a unique relationship amongnst all others is the day to day dealings between male and females obligatorily pair-bonded. Man on man or woman on woman cannot emulate this unique relationship. If it’s not the same, it should not be addressed as if it were.
The jury is out on this and I want to see more research before making a decision. Individual gay people can make fine parents, that I do not dispute. However, a child raised from cradle in a household where two like sexes are in a sexual relationship is not fully known. Until the research is there, I with hold final judgement, though intrinsically I do believe the unnatural nature of the relationship has a strong possibility of having negative impacts on the kids. It simply not the natural family unit as designed by nature. I don’t believe the hype for a second, that it does not make a difference.
Hell, regular families are so screwed up, as is, the last thing we need is another curve ball thrown at kids.
Let’s find out the real, actual, true impact before we kick the doors down and say this is a-ok.
Would I rather kid be with a loving couple than in a cold orphanage, yes, but it should be the last consideration at this point.
[quote]
There is more I want to say, but I have to go. I have family coming into town in 3 hours and I doubt I’ll be back to this thread before 7-15 pages are added. So feel free to ignore this post. I don’t think I’ll be able to post again for several days. [/quote]
Peace out Gambit… Don’t let the family stress you out to much :)[/quote]
Hey Pat, always nice talking with you. Thanks for your post. I’d like to respond to some points:
-I understand that the word “marriage” means something very special to religious individuals and that’s why I made the comment about “civil unions” above. I do, however, think that often people (not you) who are arguing for civil unions are really trying to use another method to disallow homosexuals rights and responsibilities (such as adoption). That’s why I say I am “for” homosexual marriage. It sounds like we are very close on this point.
-Schools. I don’t know if “fair” treatment of any matter can be had. Especially given the role teachers have in this society. IMO, we “coddle” kids too much anyway and hiding controversies from HS students isn’t the way to educate them. This issue is important and should be discussed as fairly as possible. Teachers should be penalized if they act in a way unbecoming their role. Just as if they said, “Vote for ____” or “I hate (group X)”.
[quote]I think we are over exposed as it is… Why are we forced to discuss other people’s sexual lives if they are gay. Strait people don’t do this, I don’t know why gays feel the need to discuss their gayness with anybody and everybody. It seems a little weird to me. I don’t put a sticker on my car that says ‘I like pussy’ or an “I like pussy” flag. Not sure why they feel the need to advertise they like cornhole.
I don’t think people should be recognized on their preference of sexual activity, that’s a private matter. I don’t need to know your “Joe the homosexual”, just “Joe” is sufficient. [/quote]
I hope you don’t mind that I copied this directly, but I wanted the response to be “fresh” I have two points in regards to this:
-When I was talking about exposure, I was talking about things like: “knowing” a gay person/couple, being friends with lesbians, doing a service project with a gay man, working closely on a project with a lesbian. I think you may have taken a different meaning.
-Secondly, this was a strange post to me that I didn’t understand at all. Sex is everywhere. People CERTAINLY advertize that they are heterosexual. From the bumper-sticker example you have above to simple comments “I went out with my girlfriend last night and…” heterosexuality and sexuality are everywhere.
-Thirdly (I guess I can’t count), gay people certainly don’t “feel the need to discuss their gayness with anybody and everybody.” At least not the ones I’ve worked with/met. On the contrary, many (most?) hide their orientation or at least don’t advertize it. This is why I mentioned exposure above. If all the gay people that you know are acting like this, then I can understand why you might have some negative views of them.
-“uniqueness” and “nature” Do you mean these in the christian sense? If so, is that an appropriate standard for society?
-Adoption/child-raising. I personally don’t need to wait for “more evidence.” I know gay men and women who would/will/have make/made good parents. For me, this isn’t something that a “statistic” can show. Personal knowledge and exposure have lead me to this personal belief.
Thanks for the words about stress. Nothing bad happened! I did get a little stressed at certain points, but that’s just family I guess. I hope you had a good weekend too.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is not a conservative / liberal issue , it is a mind your own business or not issue [/quote]
Marriage is not “your own business”. It’s a relationship officially recognized by the State.
As soon as you ask the right to marry, your business becomes we the people’s business.
Everyone business.
So the “mind your own business” side may no be the one you were thinking about. [/quote]
Marriage is ordained by God , so if my God tells me it is OK to marry the same sex then it matters not what the state says about it . The Christians want to force their moral decisions VIA the government on all others . It is truley a mind your own business situation . Now on the other hand Divorce is a Government function
-Thirdly (I guess I can’t count), gay people certainly don’t “feel the need to discuss their gayness with anybody and everybody.” At least not the ones I’ve worked with/met. On the contrary, many (most?) hide their orientation or at least don’t advertize it. This is why I mentioned exposure above. If all the gay people that you know are acting like this, then I can understand why you might have some negative views of them.
[/quote]
I want to add I think they have parades and “gay pride” to send a message to those “in the closet” it’s okay to live an openly gay lifestyle. I’m sure there’s a sizeable % of the population out there who are too ashamed to reveal their actual sexual orientation. Just look at forlife, he left his wife and children to live an openly gay lifestyle.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is not a conservative / liberal issue , it is a mind your own business or not issue [/quote]
Marriage is not “your own business”. It’s a relationship officially recognized by the State.
As soon as you ask the right to marry, your business becomes we the people’s business.
Everyone business.
So the “mind your own business” side may no be the one you were thinking about. [/quote]
Marriage is ordained by God , so if my God tells me it is OK to marry the same sex then it matters not what the state says about it . The Christians want to force their moral decisions VIA the government on all others . It is truley a mind your own business situation . Now on the other hand Divorce is a Government function
[/quote]
Marriage predates the abrahamic religions and took a very different form than it does now.
The institution they’re referring to is only a fraction the age they claim it is. Love marriages are ~200 years old.
I think you question is answered therein. I also think your question was answered on this thread (or maybe the other) but it’s pretty much the same thing.
If you are feeling better and can find that old post. We could continue the conversation we were having last week (or so). If I remember correctly, the interesting part of your beliefs is that you do see societal benefits of homosexual marriage and do see homosexuals as being able to be competent and capable parents, but don’t see this as meeting the “standard” of benefit heterosexual marriage. Many of those arguing with you would deny those things.
Have a good one. If you like the article we could discuss it as well. [/quote]
Ironically, Olsen didn’t make the conservative case for gay marriage. He made the therapeutic case for gay marriage as a card carrying Republican.
He sticks to the same themes - it’s a matter of civil rights equality (it’s not) and that it is just the next stairstep on the path to progress with African-American civil rights being the last stairstep (it’s not, and not even close), and that straight marriage won’t be negatively impacted by gay marriage (it will, because it will join other factors to continue de-legitimizing marriage as anything special or crucial in society), but mostly…if we don’t pass gay marriage, we demean the value of gay relationships, and that’s mean-spirited (it’s not for all kinds of reasons, just like college students are demeaned by not having their health care resolved through Medicare subsidies/benefits).
So, Olsen is plowing old ground, and he isn’t making the “conservative” case for marriage. And, he is incorrect. In short, everything Olsen has attempted in this article has been addressed in this (and many other) thread(s).[/quote]
Hi TB,
All of this is “plowing old ground.” The same arguments have been being made by both sides for quite some time. You may not agree with his argument or chose to label his arguments in a derogatory fashion (“therapeutic”), but there are very few changes that I’ve seen.
The only real movement that I have seen in this thread is a “change in labeling.” Honestly, I don’t think it is a change in labeling. I think that this is a tacit admission that the “traditional marriage” argument is flat and a move to highlight another argument (“ordered procreation”).
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I think that this is a tacit admission that the “traditional marriage” argument is flat and a move to highlight another argument (“ordered procreation”).
[/quote]
Admission? Flat? They’re using the same arguments. ‘Rational’ simply points out which side is rationally looking at the debate. After two threads it’s become obvious how shallow the pro-STATE recognized gay marriage argument is.
The unemotional, non-faddish, logic. Probably.[/quote]
Still waiting for an anti-gay marriage argument that hasn’t been rebutted.
When confronted with why one can legalize gay marriage and not polygamy, you responded by saying I was dodging the question. In reality, you were unable to come up with an actual rebuttal so you ignored my argument.
I understand though. Someone as committed to the CC’s teachings as you could never admit they hold an incorrect stance. It would invalidate your whole worldview.
Still waiting for an anti-gay marriage argument that hasn’t been rebutted.[/quote]
Then maybe you should actually read the two threads in question.
I didn’t ignore it. In fact, I taunted you for getting all wish-washy all of sudden. “Well, uh, gee, see, um…” For a guy to call someone a bigot, suddenly ‘marriage’ might have a definition. Yours just includes a great big whopping one other form of human relationship/arrangement. Gosh, Mr. Civil-Rights. Mr. I’m-not-bigoted-against-consenting-adults. It was one of the weakest, and frankly, cowardly responses I’ve seen on the forum. The libertarian actually understands the argument better than you do. He wouldn’t recognize ANY marriage so that all human arrangements and relationships received the same treatment by the state. THAT would be the absence of ‘bigotry.’ Not your, ahem, generous one other relationship (which happens to be your own pet project–the polyamorous bisexual be damned).
Dang, you’re pathetic in a debate. Come back when your teary-eyed emotionalism isn’t sending you into hissy-fits.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I think that this is a tacit admission that the “traditional marriage” argument is flat and a move to highlight another argument (“ordered procreation”).
[/quote]
Admission? Flat? They’re using the same arguments. ‘Rational’ simply points out which side is rationally looking at the debate. After two threads it’s become obvious how shallow the pro-STATE recognized gay marriage argument is.
[/quote]
Hi Sloth,
I’m sorry, but your grammar is confusing. Do you think there are two arguments or one? Does “They’re using…” refer to arguments or people? Do you believe that “tradition” should still be used to argue against gay marriage? I think that was the point of this thread.
I realize you believe your argument to be rational and the other side to be irrational. Obviously, I disagree. Did you read the article I just posted? I think it is a decent summary and a rational argument.
In my opinion the “anti-homosexual marriage” argument has been shown to be flat for some time. I understand that you disagree. Although I haven’t really been following these threads, is there anything new here? The switch in terminology seems the only difference.
I didn’t ignore it. In fact, I taunted you for getting all wish-washy all of sudden. “Well, uh, gee, see, um…” For a guy to call someone a bigot, suddenly ‘marriage’ might have a definition. Yours just includes a great big whopping one other form of human relationship/arrangement. Gosh Mr. Civil-Rights. Mr. I’m-not-bigoted-against-consenting-adults. It was one of the weakest, and frankly, cowardly responses I’ve seen on the forum.
[/quote]
See this is what I’m talking about. Not fully addressing my argument.
Every relationship needs to be justified separately before benefits are given. Polygamy has it’s own burden that must be met completely separate from gay marriage.
I used this example already. Handguns are legal but nuclear weapons are not… see how that works? You can legalize weapons but aren’t required to legalize all weapons?