If you really wanted the best bang for your buck, then you should be fighting a welfare/entitlement reform campaign and let the little fairies get married if they want to. [/quote]
No thanks. Why would I privilege homosexuals relationships over nonsexual arrangements and relationships through the state? They don’t perform some irreplaceable critical function by their nature. Their relationships are no more critical than Joe and his pal Steve. THAT would be bigotry. I can justify the crucial function of heterosexuality, and why a society would absolutely want to promote heterosexual marriages.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Damn, TB, I had always taken you to be a small government kind of guy.[/quote]
He is. Those arguing for expansion of STATE RECOGNIZED marriage for homosexuals are asking for pointless government expansion. Society has a critical interest in how heterosexuals (the paired reproductive sexes) arrange their relationships. Thus, government recognition and privileging of traditional marriage arrangement is justified. [/quote]
If you really wanted the best bang for your buck, then you should be fighting a welfare/entitlement reform campaign and let the little fairies get married if they want to. There’s absolutely NO reason (other than the fallacious arguments about reproduction and child rearing, both of which I’ve already disprooven) same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to be married. Unless there are underlying religious beliefs… But all of you have CLEARLY stated that your religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with your position on gay marriage. It’s purely secular. But even THOSE arguments don’t hold any water.
So what’s next? TB, arguably one of the most intelligent and well respected posters in PWI, resorted to arguing what SHOULD be allowed. If HE can’t make a decent factual argument, do you think that YOUR tiny little brain can? Are you going to tell me how the voice of God told you it was wrong? I mean apparently hallucinations are legitimate grounds for making decisions according those of you with “faith”… [/quote]
And, please, stop acting as if you’ve done any damage to our arguments. Your argument boils down to the state recognizing and POSITIVELY privileging any and all imaginative human relationship/arrangement (from 1-20 individuals, sexual or not) as married, because medical science might one day able to implant a uterus (or other arrangement) in a man. Hell, maybe even on his forehead. A uterus, carrying the embryo fashioned from 1 (himself)-20 (or more) different individuals. Out of all the silliest arguments for homosexual marriage, yours has been the most ridiculous.
Edit: And tiny little brain? Seriously, can we recruit progressives from other forums to deepen their talent pool around here?
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
[/quote]
The links posted were not secular.[/quote]
You’re a troll, right?
Again, not the hypothetical people using hypothetical religious arguments against gay marriage. I know this feels comforting to you and others because you don’t actually have to address the issues, but try and focus here: Us. The posters of PWI. The ones offering rational, logical defenses of maintaining hetero marriage.
Now you are going to tell me you were only talking about the religious people. Who are on other websites. Whose arguments have scarcely even popped their little turtle-heads up. You were just talking about them, right?
Then WHY post about it here? Any of you?
All of this must really hurt your brain.
[/quote]
Maybe the only reason the secular arguments make sense to you is because you also believe the religious ones. The secular ones do not make sense to me and many others here.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Damn, TB, I had always taken you to be a small government kind of guy.[/quote]
He is. Those arguing for expansion of STATE RECOGNIZED marriage for homosexuals are asking for pointless government expansion. Society has a critical interest in how heterosexuals (the paired reproductive sexes) arrange their relationships. Thus, government recognition and privileging of traditional marriage arrangement is justified. [/quote]
If you really wanted the best bang for your buck, then you should be fighting a welfare/entitlement reform campaign and let the little fairies get married if they want to. There’s absolutely NO reason (other than the fallacious arguments about reproduction and child rearing, both of which I’ve already disprooven) same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to be married. Unless there are underlying religious beliefs… But all of you have CLEARLY stated that your religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with your position on gay marriage. It’s purely secular. But even THOSE arguments don’t hold any water.
So what’s next? TB, arguably one of the most intelligent and well respected posters in PWI, resorted to arguing what SHOULD be allowed. If HE can’t make a decent factual argument, do you think that YOUR tiny little brain can? Are you going to tell me how the voice of God told you it was wrong? I mean apparently hallucinations are legitimate grounds for making decisions according those of you with “faith”… [/quote]
And, please, stop acting as if you’ve done any damage to our arguments. Your argument boils down to the state recognizing and POSITIVELY privileging any and all imaginative human relationship/arrangement (from 1-20 individuals, sexual or not) as married, because medical science might one day able to implant a uterus (or other arrangement) in a man. Hell, maybe even on his forehead. A uterus, carrying the embryo fashioned from 1 (himself)-20 (or more) different individuals. Out of all the silliest arguments for homosexual marriage, yours has been the most ridiculous.
Edit: And tiny little brain? Seriously, can we recruit progressives from other forums to deepen their talent pool around here?
[/quote]
I’ve been dipping my toe into the welcoming waters of PWI for years now, thank you very much. I leave when I can’t stand the stench. Thank you for telling me what my argument was. It is ACTUALLY that while infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry and adopt, SAME SEX couples (obviously infertile) can adopt but not marry. I agree that my argument that with science it may be possible to implant a fetus into a man and have him carry it to term in the future was a bit of of a stretch. I mean you can’t argue that it WON’T happen, or HASN’T happened - just that it’s probably not going to be commonplace and used as a reason for gay marriage - that IS a stretch. Almost as big of a stretch that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… But MY argument is the one you question…
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It is ACTUALLY that while infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry and adopt…
[/quote]
This has been the most thoughtless, often repeated response on here. If some of you actually thought out your own objections before hitting submit, I’d cry happy tears. The infertility, or not, of a particular couple has no bearing on the reproductive sexes being the reproductive sexes. Now, if I’m hoping to promote the orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes, I’m going to maximize it. I’m going to make sure it’s seen in daily life, as often as possible. The more often it’s undertaken, the more often it’s experienced. The more often it’s experienced, the more it is reinforced as the norm for the reproductive sexes to marry. You objection is backwards. To keep out the infertile is to increase non-married intimate relationships of the reproductive sexes as an alternative norm. As another potential model. Non-married. Contrary to our position.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It is ACTUALLY that while infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry and adopt…
[/quote]
This has been the most thoughtless, often repeated response on here. If some of you actually thought out your own objections before hitting submit, I’d cry happy tears. The infertility, or not, of a particular couple has no bearing on the reproductive sexes being the reproductive sexes. Now, if I’m hoping to promote the orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes, I’m going to maximize it. I’m going to make sure it’s seen in daily life, as often as possible. The more often it’s undertaken, the more often it’s experienced. The more often it’s experienced, the more it is reinforced as the norm for the reproductive sexes to marry. You objection is backwards. To keep out the infertile is to increase non-married intimate relationships of the reproductive sexes as an alternative norm. As another potential model. Non-married. Contrary to our position.
[/quote]
And yes, even my tiny little brain was able to think through the repercussions of taking the position you think we must take.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I agree that my argument that with science it may be possible to implant a fetus into a man and have him carry it to term in the future was a bit of of a stretch. I mean you can’t argue that it WON’T happen, or HASN’T happened - just that it’s probably not going to be commonplace and used as a reason for gay marriage - that IS a stretch. [/quote]
He is. Those arguing for expansion of STATE RECOGNIZED marriage for homosexuals are asking for pointless government expansion. Society has a critical interest in how heterosexuals (the paired reproductive sexes) arrange their relationships. Thus, government recognition and privileging of traditional marriage arrangement is justified. [/quote]
Oh, and when the shallow intellectualism of libertarianism finally concedes this point, then we might actually have the will (as a people) to do something about the welfare state, as you’ve suggested
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
[/quote]
The links posted were not secular.[/quote]
You’re a troll, right?
Again, not the hypothetical people using hypothetical religious arguments against gay marriage. I know this feels comforting to you and others because you don’t actually have to address the issues, but try and focus here: Us. The posters of PWI. The ones offering rational, logical defenses of maintaining hetero marriage.
Now you are going to tell me you were only talking about the religious people. Who are on other websites. Whose arguments have scarcely even popped their little turtle-heads up. You were just talking about them, right?
Then WHY post about it here? Any of you?
All of this must really hurt your brain.
[/quote]
Maybe the only reason the secular arguments make sense to you is because you also believe the religious ones. The secular ones do not make sense tome.[/quote]
Yeah, but figuring things out is not your strong suit.
Thanks for posting that video of the old time Preacher. In a way he reminds me of one of the local Pastor’s where I live the guy has done more for our community than just about anyone else. He’s actually a lovable individual. But the Pastor in the video never once said that he wanted to kill all the gay people. He said that if you put all the homosexual men together in one area and all the lesbians in another area that they would eventually die out because they cannot reproduce because of their homosexuality So, he was trying to make a point.
[/quote]
He didn’t say he wanted to kill homosexuals, merely round them up, put them in concentration camps with electrified fences. I guess he was kind enough to drop food over though.
[/quote]
And no one agrees with him. But he didn’t say what the previous poster said. He never said he wanted to kill homosexuals. But this is how the left operates, taking things out of context then pointing the finger and name calling.
This is at the top of the list in your play book.
You distort the actual truth and then prohibit people through PC speech from telling the truth.
How is my seeking to clarify your position ridiculous? If I am to soundly defeat your argument, I must clarify to fine detail lest I leave you wiggle room.[/quote]
Because you keep coming up with odd straw men that have nothing to do with my position, and then try and attack the straw men. It’s ridiculous.
Nope, society knows best, and government is the agent of society to carry out society’s desires.
And I am a small-government kind of guy, but not an idiotic libertarian (but I repeat myself) - and one the bulwarks against “big government” is the health and strength of society’s other crucial institutions to keep government in its proper scope…one of them being marriage and the traditional family. With the ascent of “do whatever you want, wheee!!!” culture and politics, our other institutions have been weakened, and government has had to grow to come and clean up the mess.
Strengthening marriage would help fix that.
Second, divorce is allowed because, unfortunately, not all marriages remain low-conflict. That’s easy.
The rest of your post is just nonsense - we don’t have a need to sterilize convicts in order to promote stable, orderly child birthing and rearing. And, yes, you can legislate what it is in a child’s best interest - we’ve been doing it since the birth of the republic? Don’t believe me? Go sit and watch a day in juvenile court.
Ah, another precious, precious libertarian tantrum. Yes, there are certain things you should do and certain things you shouldn’t do, and some of them are very important, so important that if you decided not to do them, society will insist that you do under pain of penalty, shame, etc.
And I mind my own business, right up until the point where everyone makes their mistakes my business by imposing the costs and consequences of their choices on the society in which I live.
I cut your post to focus on your ultimate question (the above), which I did.
Given the clown show you’ve put on in this thread, I’m not going to take your personal anecdotes as reliable proof of anything.
So, one question - do you believe that children raised by their biological parents (generally speaking, I am not interested in exceptions) are no better off than children raised in any other alternative format (generally speaking, I am not interested in exceptions)?
Edit: And tiny little brain? Seriously, can we recruit progressives from other forums to deepen their talent pool around here? [/quote]
I have been banging away in PWI for years now, and I can candidly and bluntly say that this thread might have the dumbest “progressive” arguments (and attempts at arguments) I have ever seen in a thread.
So, one question - do you believe that children raised by their biological parents (generally speaking, I am not interested in exceptions) are no better off than children raised in any other alternative format (generally speaking, I am not interested in exceptions)?
Yes? Or no?[/quote]
I know exactly why you feel the need to add these weird addendums to every simple yes/no question you ask here. I feel like I need a legal assistant to vet my posts for any possible loophole or ambiguity.
Your post above should literally be half the length it is, but we both know exactly what would happen if you made the tactical mistake of just using plain English: “You lose the debaaaate, you lose the debaaaaaate! Abusive relationships! Pedophiles! Nannynannybooboo! Forced sterilization of felons FTW!” [insert cat meme]
Earlier apparently I supported setting people on fire.
I know exactly why you feel the need to add these weird addendums to every simple yes/no question you ask here. I feel like I need a legal assistant to vet my posts for any possible loophole or ambiguity.
Your post above should literally be half the length it is, but we both know exactly what would happen if you made the tactical mistake of just using plain English: “You lose the debaaaate, you lose the debaaaaaate! Abusive relationships! Pedophiles! Nannynannybooboo! Forced sterilization of felons FTW!” [insert cat meme]
Earlier apparently I supported setting people on fire.
Good grief. [/quote]
You are exactly right, sir. Exactly right.
I was thinking of what a friend of mine - a boxer - told me here while back. He said the absolute hardest qnd worst person to box against was someone who didn’t know how to box. Not because they were extra tough or hard-hitting or anything like that - but because…they didn’t know how to box. They spend all their time swinging wildly and stupidly, and most of your time is wasted having to deal with all that mess and very little time actually boxing.
The exact same principle can be applied to this thread. Instead of clean arguments and counter-arguments (which is the fun stuff, the “boxing”), we get non-sequiturs and straw men: “yeah, you may have secular, public policy arguments against gay marriage, but did you see that a Christian pastor wants to burn up gays??!!! How do you deal with that??!!!” Or, my favorite: “don’t support gay marriage - you must be a bigot!!!”
Pro-gay marriage or pro-traditional marriage aside, these bozos simply don’t know how to box. I know exactly what my friend meant.
So, one question - do you believe that children raised by their biological parents (generally speaking, I am not interested in exceptions) are no better off than children raised in any other alternative format (generally speaking, I am not interested in exceptions)?
Yes? Or no?[/quote]
I know exactly why you feel the need to add these weird addendums to every simple yes/no question you ask here. I feel like I need a legal assistant to vet my posts for any possible loophole or ambiguity.
Your post above should literally be half the length it is, but we both know exactly what would happen if you made the tactical mistake of just using plain English: “You lose the debaaaate, you lose the debaaaaaate! Abusive relationships! Pedophiles! Nannynannybooboo! Forced sterilization of felons FTW!” [insert cat meme]
Earlier apparently I supported setting people on fire.
I know exactly why you feel the need to add these weird addendums to every simple yes/no question you ask here. I feel like I need a legal assistant to vet my posts for any possible loophole or ambiguity.
Your post above should literally be half the length it is, but we both know exactly what would happen if you made the tactical mistake of just using plain English: “You lose the debaaaate, you lose the debaaaaaate! Abusive relationships! Pedophiles! Nannynannybooboo! Forced sterilization of felons FTW!” [insert cat meme]
Earlier apparently I supported setting people on fire.
Good grief. [/quote]
You are exactly right, sir. Exactly right.
I was thinking of what a friend of mine - a boxer - told me here while back. He said the absolute hardest qnd worst person to box against was someone who didn’t know how to box. Not because they were extra tough or hard-hitting or anything like that - but because…they didn’t know how to box. They spend all their time swinging wildly and stupidly, and most of your time is wasted having to deal with all that mess and very little time actually boxing.
The exact same principle can be applied to this thread. Instead of clean arguments and counter-arguments (which is the fun stuff, the “boxing”), we get non-sequiturs and straw men: “yeah, you may have secular, public policy arguments against gay marriage, but did you see that a Christian pastor wants to burn up gays??!!! How do you deal with that??!!!” Or, my favorite: “don’t support gay marriage - you must be a bigot!!!”
Pro-gay marriage or pro-traditional marriage aside, these bozos simply don’t know how to box. I know exactly what my friend meant.[/quote]
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
-I don’t really mind if it is called a “civil union” so long as it is equivalent and not some ploy to deny rights or responsibilities.
-I don’t think the existence of homosexuals is “controversial” or that schools should be barred from discussing their existence. This is especially true at the HS and tertiary levels, but also true for elementary education.
-I do think that exposure will lead to acceptance. Just as some posters (I think even some on this thread) have said they “wouldn’t want to live next door to a Muslim family” I think that as more people are exposed to homosexuals views about their qualities and abilities will “soften”.
-I don’t think all those who are against gay marriage are bigots. I think it is offensive and unproductive to jump there immediately. That said, there are unquestionably bigots on both sides of the argument, and it is foolish to deny this.
-gay couples can, do, and have been making excellent parents.
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]Gambit_Lost wrote:
-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.
[/quote]
This is what I was trying to say earlier. There is some fundamental reason they are all against gay marriage so any argument that agrees with that belief will make sense even though it doesn’t to everyone else. If you already believe gay marriage is wrong then any argument FOR it cannot possibly be valid. This makes these debates pointless.