[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling. [/quote]
Poor Edevus. Still not able to keep pace, are you?
[/quote]
Who’s exactly not able to keep pace here, the ones who support progress or the ones stuck in old beliefs? Yeah, that’d be you.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To my righteous Christian friends:
I FULLY respect that YOU have a religion. Your religion has rules and beliefs and who am I to tell you what to believe? I support your right to believe as you wish and to practice YOUR religion in the way that gives you the best spiritual comfort.
But this is not a religious issue…
[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock. Have you even bothered to read this thread, or the previous Gay Marriage thread? Or any of the countless others before it?
I can think of exactly one person who argues this matter from a religious angle.
Very hard to take you guys seriously when your arguments start with three paragraphs of exposition to imaginary opponents. I thought us religious nuts were supposed to be the crazy ones?
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling. [/quote]
Poor Edevus. Still not able to keep pace, are you?
[/quote]
Who’s exactly not able to keep pace here, the ones who support progress or the ones stuck in old beliefs? Yeah, that’d be you. [/quote]
Yeah! Good one, dude! High five!..You said “progress,” heheh.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
What are heterosexual couples providing? Children?
[/quote]
Uh, yeah. Exactly.
See my previous post. Any imbecile can “be” a parent. We don’t want to reward people just for “being” parents. We are encouraging a certain kind of arrangement, for a very specific, and vital, reason.
The only two things being asked are that homosexual couples can also get the social benefits that being married has and that they have the same right to adopt or surrogate as heterosexual couples.
It was a sarcastic argument, that’s why it feels stupid, so it does trying to prevent other human beings from having access to some social benefits just because their sexual orientation is different.
Considering how much you talk about “model” and similar, do you believe that homosexuals being able to marry would encourage more people to…become homosexual or something like that? I feel disgusted from just typing it.
Why are you occupying a concept that is older than the bible?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling. [/quote]
Poor Edevus. Still not able to keep pace, are you?
[/quote]
Who’s exactly not able to keep pace here, the ones who support progress or the ones stuck in old beliefs? Yeah, that’d be you. [/quote]
Yeah! Good one, dude! High five!..You said “progress,” heheh.
[/quote]
I know, I know. If it was for you guys, Torquemada would still be a hero.
Let’s name this ‘thing’ that has been cockblocking progress for centuries in many different countries. What was its name…
Edevus, do you support the “progress” of my two heterosexual committed bachelor best friends who are fishing buddies and have decided to room together indefinitely?
You support “progress,” so they should be good to go, too, right?
Cortes, do you support setting people on fire because they don’t believe in the same things as you do?
You support the preachings of the Bible, so this should be good to go, right?
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
What are heterosexual couples providing? Children?
[/quote]
Uh, yeah. Exactly.
See my previous post. Any imbecile can “be” a parent. We don’t want to reward people just for “being” parents. We are encouraging a certain kind of arrangement, for a very specific, and vital, reason.
The only two things being asked are that homosexual couples can also get the social benefits that being married has and that they have the same right to adopt or surrogate as heterosexual couples.
It was a sarcastic argument, that’s why it feels stupid, so it does trying to prevent other human beings from having access to some social benefits just because their sexual orientation is different.
[/quote]
Either you are being intentionally dense or disingenuous. They are being denied access to these benefits for no such reason, as has been exhaustively explained, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Doesn’t matter. That’s not what the argument says. Try and follow. We are not talking about encouraging heterosexuality. We are talking about giving people a reason to HAVE CHILDREN and then STAY MARRIED and provide STABLE HOMES to those children. We really have to explain every single aspect of this thing to you guys.
Watch, I know what’s coming next. We’re getting close to the point that you guys have any logical leg left to stand on, and that reset button will get hit here sooner or later like it did with the creation of this thread.
I’m not “occupying” anything. No idea what this means.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Who’s exactly not able to keep pace here, the ones who support progress or the ones stuck in old beliefs? Yeah, that’d be you. [/quote]
Gay marriage isn’t “progress” - “progress” is creating solutions to existing problems. Gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn’t solve anything - society doesn’t get any reciprocal benefits from the institutionalization of this kind of marriage.
But hey, if “renting a mother” is “natural”, maybe anything is possible?
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Cortes, do you support setting people on fire because they don’t believe in the same things as you do?
You support the preachings of the Bible, so this should be good to go, right?[/quote]
Okay, you obviously have nothing. I’m done wasting my time with you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, your claim to own a “rational” stance when it comes to social institutions as opposed to other peoples beliefs is laughable. [/quote]
No, it isn’t, which is why you didn’t explain why.
Signature Orion incoherence.
Yes, it is, it is precisely that - social engineering. I never said it was anything else.
But, gay marriage advocates want to change marriage and…you guessed it…wait for it…are therefore engaging in…the anticipation is too much…social engineering as well.
Well done, Orion. You are a social engineer to the very core, and a radical one that refuses to look before you leap. Nice, but your libertarian paymasters would like to have a word with you.
No, it doesn’t.[/quote]
Well, I had rather my words be incoherent than my thoughts, which must be terrible, I am sure.
In my perfect world, government would get out of the marriage business.
There is no social engineering to be seen.
In your perfect world your vision of social engineering competes with others, take this up with your fellow liberals.
You even go so far as if the wish to be accepted is not perfectly natural too… for a social animal.
THE social animal, no less.
Finally, all this claptrap about the state issuing marriage licenses to further procreation and whatnot is laughable when states intrusion into marriage always and everywhere had one reason and one reason only, control and the exercise of power.
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, I had rather my words be incoherent than my thoughts, which must be terrible, I am sure.[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it, and I have no doubt that you are sure of it.
[quote]In my perfect world, government would get out of the marriage business.
There is no social engineering to be seen.
In your perfect world your vision of social engineering competes with others, take this up with your fellow liberals. [/quote]
This is stupid on its face - if it were a “perfect” world, there would be no competition among concepts and policies or need for it, because there would be no “imperfections” to smooth out or fix by and through the contest of ideas.
Well done.
[quote]You even go so far as if the wish to be accepted is not perfectly natural too… for a social animal.
THE social animal, no less. [/quote]
There is nothing wrong with someone wanted to be accepted, that is fine - that is irrelevant to whether we need to institutionalize through the power of the state a concept that provides no reciprocal benefits to society.
Of course it is an exercise in power - society exercises its power to put a brake on undesirable activity for the betterment of said society, and always has. It’s a crucial function to maintaining civilization.
That doesn’t fit in with your libertarian “perfect world” - so what? Even better - who cares?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Cortes, do you support setting people on fire because they don’t believe in the same things as you do?
You support the preachings of the Bible, so this should be good to go, right?[/quote]
Okay, you obviously have nothing. I’m done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
???
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Edevus, do you support the “progress” of my two heterosexual committed bachelor best friends who are fishing buddies and have decided to room together indefinitely?
You support “progress,” so they should be good to go, too, right? [/quote]
It was you who said that first, so I answered on the same light.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay, you obviously have nothing. I’m done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
If I may take the liberty of pointing out the obvious, there seems to be an unstated competition to be the least effective and most frivolous gay marriage advocate in these threads among several posters, and Edevus has charged into the lead.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Cortes, do you support setting people on fire because they don’t believe in the same things as you do?
You support the preachings of the Bible, so this should be good to go, right?[/quote]
Okay, you obviously have nothing. I’m done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
???
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Edevus, do you support the “progress” of my two heterosexual committed bachelor best friends who are fishing buddies and have decided to room together indefinitely?
You support “progress,” so they should be good to go, too, right? [/quote]
It was you who said that first, so I answered on the same light. [/quote]
So are you saying, then, that you DO NOT support my scenario? If so, please say so, I certainly can’t be expected to divine that out of a weird retort about my wanting to set people on fire.
Now, if you are saying that you DO NOT support my scenario, then you should be able to explain why? What is the essential difference that makes two homosexual dudes more entitled to over 1000 federal benefits, when my fishing buddies get none? Should be easy, right? Please show me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay, you obviously have nothing. I’m done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
If I may take the liberty of pointing out the obvious, there seems to be an unstated competition to be the least effective and most frivolous gay marriage advocate in these threads among several posters, and Edevus has charged into the lead.[/quote]
Lol. Quite literally, thank you, t.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Who’s exactly not able to keep pace here, the ones who support progress or the ones stuck in old beliefs? Yeah, that’d be you. [/quote]
Gay marriage isn’t “progress” - “progress” is creating solutions to existing problems. Gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn’t solve anything - society doesn’t get any reciprocal benefits from the institutionalization of this kind of marriage.
But hey, if “renting a mother” is “natural”, maybe anything is possible?[/quote]
You increase the happiness of 5-10% of population and you open the door to more orphan children being able to land in a happy familiar environment.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Doesn’t matter. That’s not what the argument says. Try and follow. We are not talking about encouraging heterosexuality. We are talking about giving people a reason to HAVE CHILDREN and then STAY MARRIED and provide STABLE HOMES to those children. We really have to explain every single aspect of this thing to you guys.
Watch, I know what’s coming next. We’re getting close to the point that you guys have any logical leg left to stand on, and that reset button will get hit here sooner or later like it did with the creation of this thread.
[/quote]
Homosexual people CAN HAVE CHILDREN (alternative methods as started above), will STAY MARRIED if they are in love and will provide STABLE HOMES to their children.
How is this so hard to understand?
If you were to be born again, what would you prefer, a junkie woman as your mother with an alcoholic abusive man as your father OR two normal homosexual people? According to your logic guys, the first one is “fine”, the second one is…whatever.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay, you obviously have nothing. I’m done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
If I may take the liberty of pointing out the obvious, there seems to be an unstated competition to be the least effective and most frivolous gay marriage advocate in these threads among several posters, and Edevus has charged into the lead.[/quote]
If you want to point out the obvious, why don’t you see how Brother Chris, who’s on your side, started his argument by trolling me and that’s how many of my answers came to be? Because I was answering to a TROLL.
But you won’t see this.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
You increase the happiness of 5-10% of population and you open the door to more orphan children being able to land in a happy familiar environment. [/quote]
Well, no you don’t, not categorically, and in any event you don’t pass laws to “make people happy” - that’s just dumb as hell.
Secondly, if we have a public policy problem of not enough orphaned kids going to family environments, that’s an easy fix - create more incentives for traditional/rational families to adopt them. That’s a piece of cake.
There isn’t a lack of interest in traditional/rational families to take on adopted children - it’s a matter of ability. So, we can easily improve their ability to take them on.
Problem solved.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling.
[/quote]
I see you’re still lacking facts and sources for your argument.