A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[koshergrl]

I've already stated that ad nauseum.

What's your point about immorality and the law? Do you have one?

 

[amrchaos]

I've already stated that ad nauseum.

What's your point about immorality and the law? Do you have one?

First, I don't see where you posted your beliefs about gay marriage anywhere. Maybe you can point out the post number for me?

2nd--you actually agreed with me. What is considered immoral is not necessarily illegal. Nor does it have to be.

edit note--I only have 5 minutes. If I leave, I guess we have to pick up the discussion on Monday.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said it did have to be.

 

[amrchaos]

I never said it did have to be.

I said you agreed with me--so there is no need for a discussion on the matter in general.

But when we come to specific cases, you tend to go off the rails and accusing people about their beliefs concerning seperation of church and state and so forth. Why are you talking seperation of church and state if the need for morality from a religion is not being the main attribute of deciding something is lawful or not?

Edit:--I only have a minute or so left. The post number again?

 

[amrchaos]

See you Monday

 

[koshergrl]

Honestly, I don't care what you said, or what you deem there is a "need" to do, or not do. I am talking about separation of church and state because it was brought up.

"if the need for morality from a religion is not being the main attribute of deciding something is lawful or not?" does not make sense. The syntax is improper.."not being the main attribute" wtf does that mean? And the whole *sentence* is not a complete sentence.

I don't go off the rails at all, btw. In fact, if anyone has gone off the rails, I think it's you. I'm *accusing people about their beliefs*??? Really? What am I *accusing people about their beliefs* ABOUT?

Take an English as a second language class, because it's impossible to discuss an issue intelligently with a person who can't convey a single, coherent thought.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank God.

 

[Gadawg73]

Homosexuals want to take it out of the bedroom, into the churches, down mainstreet, into the office, on the playground, and broadcast it on television.

Preach to your own lobby and stop trying to force your morality upon a majority who doesn't want it, and who wants to continue to recognize and support the healthy construct upon which our society is built. If gays want to be married, they can find a person of the opposite sex and marry them. Nobody gives a shit what they do in their bedrooms. But don't force us to pretend families headed by homosexual couples are the most successful construct for raising children. Because that's hogwash.

Ah, gotcha. So you’re saying you’re against gays expressing themselves how they wish in a free society? Would you rather we use government force to quiet them all?

I’m sorry if you can’t stand to see a gay person “walking down mainstreet”, or taking their children to a playground, but you’re just going to have to deal with it Kosher – this is America.

One of the side effects you get from living in a free country is that you’re going to see and hear some things you don’t necessarily agree with. It just comes with the territory. Not everyone thinks just like you do…

Serial killers want to express themselves that's why they are serial killers. Do we allow them to express themselves?

Where is the consitutional amendment to ban serial killers from marrying?
Amazing you folks want gays to be banned to marry but it is okay for child molestors, killers, forgers, insurance fraud specialists etc.
Makes no sense.
Gay marriage affects no one. Non issue. Time to move on and get to work on the nation's problems.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no constitutional amendment that prevents gays from marrying.

They can get married, and receive recognition as married people...but they have to actually participate in the construct of marriage.

 

[Gadawg73]

There's no constitutional amendment that prevents gays from marrying.

They can get married, and receive recognition as married people...but they have to actually participate in the construct of marriage.

They can not marry who they love.
The "construct of marriage" was NEVER love until the last 2 centuries.
The construct of marriage for centuries was always for convenience, treaty, politics, business and were most always ARRANGED by the family.
I am interested in promoting LOVE. If 2 folks love each other they ought to be able to marry.
Marriage ought to be about LOVE, not "the construct of marriage".
Your construct of marriage allows immoral serial killers to marry.
Makes your argument, or a lack of one, absurd.

 

[koshergrl]

Who cares what you think marriage should be? The truth of the matter is, marrying someone we love isn't a "right". Gays have the same right to get married as anyone else. What they "want" doesn't matter, what you "want" doesn't matter. I want a toilet seat made of gold. That doesn't mean you have to give it to me, or refer to me as "the lady with a gold toilet seat". I don't have one, you don't have to give me one, and if I don't get one, I'm never going to be "the lady with a gold toilet seat" no matter how much I want it.

I'm not GUARANTEED a gold toilet seat just because I want one. If I want to earn one, I have to accumulate MONEY. If I don't want to accumulate money, it's not your job to give me one anyway.

This is all about choices. Gay people CAN get married.

Can they marry for love? How do I know and what does that have to do with anything? But they can certainly participate in the construct along with all the rest of us plebes who do.

If they choose NOT to, we are not obligated to refer to them as married, or afford them the tax breaks that marriage offers, or pretend they are married. We recognize and support hetero marriage because it is the cornerstone upon which our society is built, and because it is the #1 best guarantee of the successful rearing of children. We don't support and recognize *marriage* because it is an expression of love...we support and recognize it because it benefits us, as a society, to do so. If people find love within the construct, good for them...but it is by no means a *requirement* or a *right* that marriage results in love...and marriage does not bestow the *right* to love upon people. They can love each other just fine without the construct of marriage. And they can still participate in the construct, if they so desire.

This BS that we must provide everybody what they *want* based on the fact that other people have that particularly coveted thing, or state, or title, and the idea that if we refuse to give people what they want on demand is just that...bs. We afford a certain privileged status to married couples because it benefits us as a society. Homosexual couples are not participating in the construct that benefits us, and thus have no *right* to the incentives we provide to those who do. If they want those incentives, they have the *right* to participate in the construct that we reward.

 

[koshergrl]

If we had the *right* to marry anyone we love, people could marry more than one person, we could marry our close relatives, whatever.

But since marriage has never been about giving people the opportunity to express love except in the most peripheral way, that's not the case. Marriage is about providing a construct that is beneficial for children, and thus, our society.

I have heard it argued that it also provides a construct by which men are given a role in society that otherwise they would not be granted...women are biologically granted motherhood, but fatherhood is a social construct....

 

[KevinWestern]

Homosexuals want to take it out of the bedroom, into the churches, down mainstreet, into the office, on the playground, and broadcast it on television.

Preach to your own lobby and stop trying to force your morality upon a majority who doesn't want it, and who wants to continue to recognize and support the healthy construct upon which our society is built. If gays want to be married, they can find a person of the opposite sex and marry them. Nobody gives a shit what they do in their bedrooms. But don't force us to pretend families headed by homosexual couples are the most successful construct for raising children. Because that's hogwash.

Ah, gotcha. So you’re saying you’re against gays expressing themselves how they wish in a free society? Would you rather we use government force to quiet them all?

I’m sorry if you can’t stand to see a gay person “walking down mainstreet”, or taking their children to a playground, but you’re just going to have to deal with it Kosher – this is America.

One of the side effects you get from living in a free country is that you’re going to see and hear some things you don’t necessarily agree with. It just comes with the territory. Not everyone thinks just like you do…

Serial killers want to express themselves that's why they are serial killers. Do we allow them to express themselves?

Serial killers can express themselves in anyway they like, but the moment they start infringing on the rights of others - ie in the form of killing, perhaps - they should be sentenced and punished (severely).

Key thing to take here:
1.) Gay person walking down the street = not infringing on anyone's rights = LEGAL
2.) Serial killer killing another person = infringing on someone's rights = ILLEGAL

 

[KevinWestern]

If we had the *right* to marry anyone we love, people could marry more than one person, we could marry our close relatives, whatever.

But since marriage has never been about giving people the opportunity to express love except in the most peripheral way, that's not the case. Marriage is about providing a construct that is beneficial for children, and thus, our society.

I have heard it argued that it also provides a construct by which men are given a role in society that otherwise they would not be granted...women are biologically granted motherhood, but fatherhood is a social construct....

This is the way I view it (and I'd like to hear your thoughts):

1.) If Same-Sex marriage is allowed, the lives of gays will drastically improve. No change on my life (I’m a straight married man).
2.) If Same-Sex marriage is barred, gays will be worse off. No change on my life (I’m a straight married man).

Now, if option 1 resulted in a scenario where my life was adversely affected (perhaps where I was forced to marry a same-sex partner), I might vote against it. But since it has no effect on my life whatsoever, I don’t see a SINGLE REASON why I should deny adult gay humans the same access to marriage as I do.

At the end of the day, when you ban gay couples from being able to file joint taxes, share eachother’s medical records, and access one another’s SS allotment, what did you really achieve? You participated in a measure that only accomplishes one thing: making another group of human beings – totally separate from you – worse off overall. The total number of straight people remains the same, and the total number of gay people remains the same (key concept)....

We live such short lives, and know virtually nothing about anything (as humans), so why don't you just worry about yourself with the time that's been given to you? Why do you try so hard to make people you don’t know or interact with unhappy?


.

 

[WinterBorn]

Homosexuals want to take it out of the bedroom, into the churches, down mainstreet, into the office, on the playground, and broadcast it on television.

Preach to your own lobby and stop trying to force your morality upon a majority who doesn't want it, and who wants to continue to recognize and support the healthy construct upon which our society is built. If gays want to be married, they can find a person of the opposite sex and marry them. Nobody gives a shit what they do in their bedrooms. But don't force us to pretend families headed by homosexual couples are the most successful construct for raising children. Because that's hogwash.

Ah, gotcha. So you’re saying you’re against gays expressing themselves how they wish in a free society? Would you rather we use government force to quiet them all?

I’m sorry if you can’t stand to see a gay person “walking down mainstreet”, or taking their children to a playground, but you’re just going to have to deal with it Kosher – this is America.

One of the side effects you get from living in a free country is that you’re going to see and hear some things you don’t necessarily agree with. It just comes with the territory. Not everyone thinks just like you do…

Serial killers want to express themselves that's why they are serial killers. Do we allow them to express themselves?

Talk about n off the wall analogy.....

 

[WinterBorn]

PS..I'm still waiting for whichever imbecile made the claim that gay marriage has the exact same strengths as hetero marriages to back up that claim,

and I'm still waiting for ac to make his point about immorality et al. So far he's just asking ridiculous questions that he thinks he knows the answers to, but making no point at all.

I believe I have already stated several points which show gay marriage offers the same advantages. I asked you to give me benefits society gains from straight marriages that will not be gained from gay marriages.

But what the hell....

Society gains from marriages:

1) Stable relationships provide stable homes for children. (both gay and straight do that)

2) Married couples tend to buy homes and provide economic advantages for their communities. (both gay and straight do that)

 

[BDBoop]

Who cares what you think marriage should be? The truth of the matter is, marrying someone we love isn't a "right". Gays have the same right to get married as anyone else. What they "want" doesn't matter, what you "want" doesn't matter. I want a toilet seat made of gold. That doesn't mean you have to give it to me, or refer to me as "the lady with a gold toilet seat". I don't have one, you don't have to give me one, and if I don't get one, I'm never going to be "the lady with a gold toilet seat" no matter how much I want it.

I'm not GUARANTEED a gold toilet seat just because I want one. If I want to earn one, I have to accumulate MONEY. If I don't want to accumulate money, it's not your job to give me one anyway.

This is all about choices. Gay people CAN get married.

Can they marry for love? How do I know and what does that have to do with anything? But they can certainly participate in the construct along with all the rest of us plebes who do.

If they choose NOT to, we are not obligated to refer to them as married, or afford them the tax breaks that marriage offers, or pretend they are married. We recognize and support hetero marriage because it is the cornerstone upon which our society is built, and because it is the #1 best guarantee of the successful rearing of children. We don't support and recognize *marriage* because it is an expression of love...we support and recognize it because it benefits us, as a society, to do so. If people find love within the construct, good for them...but it is by no means a *requirement* or a *right* that marriage results in love...and marriage does not bestow the *right* to love upon people. They can love each other just fine without the construct of marriage. And they can still participate in the construct, if they so desire.

This BS that we must provide everybody what they *want* based on the fact that other people have that particularly coveted thing, or state, or title, and the idea that if we refuse to give people what they want on demand is just that...bs. We afford a certain privileged status to married couples because it benefits us as a society. Homosexual couples are not participating in the construct that benefits us, and thus have no *right* to the incentives we provide to those who do. If they want those incentives, they have the *right* to participate in the construct that we reward.

You have the 'privilege' of marrying whoever you love. They do not.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.

I can't marry someone who is already married, for example.

I can't marry my child.

I can't marry my brother, my father, or my uncle.

I can't marry my dog, and I can't marry more than one person, no matter HOW much I love them.

And I can't marry a person of the same sex.

 

[BDBoop]

No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.

I can't marry someone who is already married, for example.

I can't marry my child.

I can't marry my brother, my father, or my uncle.

I can't marry my dog, and I can't marry more than one person, no matter HOW much I love them.

And I can't marry a person of the same sex.

But you aren't in love with any of those people.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.

I can't marry someone who is already married, for example.

I can't marry my child.

I can't marry my brother, my father, or my uncle.

I can't marry my dog, and I can't marry more than one person, no matter HOW much I love them.

And I can't marry a person of the same sex.

Kosher - If same-sex adult, consenting American citizens are allowed to marry, how will this adversely affect your day to day existence?

Just wondering... trying to pick your brain...