[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.[/quote]
Pointless? Absolutely! However, I could say the same thing about you and your atheist brethren.
[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.[/quote]
What you are arguing, essentially, is that there is no way to know the truth; hence, any debate, of any kind, is essentially pointless.
If you really believe this, then why the hell are you wasting so much of your time in PWI?
For the record, I don’t think you do believe this. You, conveniently, only believe it as it applies to those with different opinions than your own. If you disagree, well then, see above.
I also think you are broadly misinterpreting what GB was getting at.
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.[/quote]
Post hoc ergi propter hoc. You falsely assume that because gay marriage opponents making the secular case against gay marriage are non atheists that opposition must be caused by pre-existing religious bias.
Look, the secular case against gay marriage is there - refute it, or don’t. So far, you have not. But it stands or falls on its own merits. Just don’t avoid it by trying to assume the argument isn’t meritorious because you want to so desperately attack bias. That’s dumb, and you and your colleagues have been doing it since the beginning.
[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]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And even if you give it a different name, people will just eventually call it ‘marriage.’
[/quote]
I don’t think so… Marriage isn’t really what I consider a generic fall back term. I am fine with them having a term of endearment for it, it’s just not a marriage; that one is taken.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
I’d be fine with that. As a advcate of liberty, if they want their union officially recognized in some way and want the perks that come with that recognition I don’t have a problem with that.
If they insist on using the term marriage to describe, then they would need to justify how its the exact same as a hetero marriage.
Bottom line, no matter how ‘Nelly’ and man can be, or how butch a woman can be, a man is still a man, and a woman is still an woman. The actual sex of a person and the implications a persons sex has, not only matters, but matters a great deal in a intimate sexual relationship. From physical traits to hormonal profiles and cognative affects related to a persons sex all plays a role in the marriage and is in large part what makes the relationship unique from a friendship, parent-child, co-worker, teammate, etc.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And even if you give it a different name, people will just eventually call it ‘marriage.’
[/quote]
I don’t think so… Marriage isn’t really what I consider a generic fall back term. I am fine with them having a term of endearment for it, it’s just not a marriage; that one is taken.[/quote]
This may be a bit off topic but, how do you see Civil Marriages performed by government officials? Do you see them as valid? Most couples I know who took this route just say they are married.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
Why don’t we just call them two guys living together who are extra fond of each other, and give them no special rights under the law?
Just felt like jumping in here… Someone probably made this point by now, but definitions are constantly changing, we shouldn’t be clinging to a specific definition of anything, as society evolves, so do our definitions.
Also, just because something goes against the religious views of the majority does not mean it can be imposed on the minority. If there was a jewish majority in the US, it wouldn’t be right for them to make the consumption of pork illegal.
[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]
Maybe because they are not entirely affected by the heresy of modernism.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
Because words have meanings? In debate you have to define your terms and make distinctions. It seems like people don’t find that a proper solution in debating anymore. At least not on here.
Just felt like jumping in here… Someone probably made this point by now, but definitions are constantly changing, we shouldn’t be clinging to a specific definition of anything, as society evolves, so do our definitions. [/quote]
What happens when society devolves? SHould we accept the definitions of a devolving society, too?
Societies don’t inevitably march in the direction of “progress” - they decline. In fact, every civilization has. So, at some point, we aren’t “evolving” so much as “devolving”, and something has to be done to arrest the decline.
Strengthening rational institutions helps reverse the course of decline. Therapeutic distractions - aptly referred to in this thread as “bread and circuses” - help hasten it.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
Why don’t we just call them two guys living together who are extra fond of each other, and give them no special rights under the law?
[/quote]
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
Why don’t we just call them two guys living together who are extra fond of each other, and give them no special rights under the law?
[/quote]
Where it is now if they have a civil union then they can say that and it seems like most people (hetero) that I know that have civil unions still just call themselves married. But the ones that live in states that allow civil unions do at least have the rights afforded by that.
