Gay marriage

[musicman]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Marriage has always pertained to mating, regardless of the preferences or limitations of the parties involved. The appropriate equipment is essential, or it's not marriage.

No, it has not. At least not for everybody. The appropriate equipment is essential? What would that equipment be - functioning sex organs? What if they don't work - is it a marriage then? How about love and commitment as essential equipment?

Yes, it has - for everybody. Remember? "...regardless of the preferences or limitations of the parties involved...". A penis and a vagina have ALWAYS been the appropriate equipment - otherwise, it's not a marriage.

 

[Omegaman]

Marriage IS the union between one women and one man. Mating is part of the reason but the effects of that mating, i.e. reproduction is very high on the list. But that is not all that is involved in marriage. A family, with a father for disipline, a mother for the understaning and closeness. The family which is the root of America. The base apon which the greatness of this country was founded.
Gays cannot provide ANY of this. They are not having any "right" taken away. They have no right to marriage. Like most anything else in life there are certain rules, you must have a BA or BS to get into law school for example, that if you do not meet you do not get the benifits of that activity. Just like law schools refuse admission to law school without meeting the rules gays are refused the privlige of marriage because they do not and cannot meet the rules.

Omegaman

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Omegaman
Marriage IS the union between one women and one man. Mating is part of the reason but the effects of that mating, i.e. reproduction is very high on the list. But that is not all that is involved in marriage. A family, with a father for disipline, a mother for the understaning and closeness. The family which is the root of America. The base apon which the greatness of this country was founded.
Gays cannot provide ANY of this. They are not having any "right" taken away. They have no right to marriage. Like most anything else in life there are certain rules, you must have a BA or BS to get into law school for example, that if you do not meet you do not get the benifits of that activity. Just like law schools refuse admission to law school without meeting the rules gays are refused the privlige of marriage because they do not and cannot meet the rules.

Omegaman

Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
I've known engineers, teachers, and social activists, all well adjusted people who contribut to society.

You do relize that they are people too, and people have problems sometimes, that do not have anything to do with their sexuality.

Well, as I said, I'm speaking from my own personal experience. Looking across the landscape of my personal life, I see a lot of misery and devastation wrought by a hateful, cynical, liberal culture. A prime example of their handiwork is the push for societal acceptance of deviant, harmful sexual behavior.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Omegaman
Marriage IS the union between one women and one man. Mating is part of the reason but the effects of that mating, i.e. reproduction is very high on the list. But that is not all that is involved in marriage. A family, with a father for disipline, a mother for the understaning and closeness. The family which is the root of America. The base apon which the greatness of this country was founded.
Gays cannot provide ANY of this. They are not having any "right" taken away. They have no right to marriage. Like most anything else in life there are certain rules, you must have a BA or BS to get into law school for example, that if you do not meet you do not get the benifits of that activity. Just like law schools refuse admission to law school without meeting the rules gays are refused the privlige of marriage because they do not and cannot meet the rules.

Omegaman

Look, marriage is founded on the tradition of a man and a woman joining together to form a family through pro-creation. It is as deep rooted in our instincts as anything else other than perhaps the search for food. Remember the cavemen drawings as kids? It was always the man draggin the woman. Sure, that is very prehistoric "thinking" but it is reality. From the beginning of time man and woman have joined together in a form of marriage to have kids to keep the species surviving.

In modern society we continue the same instincts, but we do it under the guise of the law and the church. But the fundamentals of what marriage are remain. The joining together of the female and male genders of the human species for the PURPOSE of pro-creation.

In modern society we do not put as much importance on this as we once did (my father was one of 12), but the reason for the tradition is what made it a tradition in the first place. And it wasn't cuz to cave people fell in love. It was because innately, they knew they had to "do the monkey" (not literally : ) if they were going to keep the species alive.

Now mind you, it wasn't two male or two female humans that got to gether and figured this out. If it were, we wouldn't be reading this BS I am typing today as the species would have died off.

Now libs, how do you dispute this creationist based argument for protecting the sanctity of marriage based on deep rooted traditions?

 

[Omegaman]

It is bedtime for me but I hope that those who replied with my post in their response understand that I agree and we are saying the same thing. Thanks again for all the welcomes.

Omegaman

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Look, marriage is founded on the tradition of a man and a woman joining together to form a family through pro-creation. It is as deep rooted in our instincts as anything else other than perhaps the search for food. Remember the cavemen drawings as kids? It was always the man draggin the woman. Sure, that is very prehistoric "thinking" but it is reality. From the beginning of time man and woman have joined together in a form of marriage to have kids to keep the species surviving.

In modern society we continue the same instincts, but we do it under the guise of the law and the church. But the fundamentals of what marriage are remain. The joining together of the female and male genders of the human species for the PURPOSE of pro-creation.

In modern society we do not put as much importance on this as we once did (my father was one of 12), but the reason for the tradition is what made it a tradition in the first place. And it wasn't cuz to cave people fell in love. It was because innately, they knew they had to "do the monkey" (not literally : ) if they were going to keep the species alive.

Now mind you, it wasn't two male or two female humans that got to gether and figured this out. If it were, we wouldn't be reading this BS I am typing today as the species would have died off.

Now libs, how do you dispute this creationist based argument for protecting the sanctity of marriage based on deep rooted traditions?

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Hey, do what you want, but not in front of me and don't ask for tax breaks that the 'breeders' get.

Fine. Don't attend any gay weddings. Do surrogate mothers and sperm banks get tax breaks?

-----------------------------------

It should be against the law, how can a kid be raised to be a successful person if mommy and daddy both pee'd in the same urinal?
It should not be against the law. Not long ago, people were wondering how a kid raised by a couple who held different religious beliefs, or who were from different races, could be a successful person. Children from mixed races were ever ridiculed as "half-breeds". Times and understandings change.

------------------------------------

You cant do that [raise a kid right] with a male and male or female and female.

Yes, you can. it is physically possible, particularly if the kid is not teased and ridiculed by bigots.

--------------------------------------------

I think the point of marriage is to bring kids into the world into a loving environment where they will learn and prosper. I don't think that's possible with a Gay relationship. You will be devoid of a whole gender of experience. Who will be the father figure in a lesbian relationship? Who will be the mother in a gay relationship? Add in the fact that most gays don't want to be married in the first place and the whole argument becomes absurd.

Oh no. My wife and I are married but we are thinking about not having children. Should we outlaw marriage for those who are infertile/sterile or who choose not to bring kids into the world?

It is possible to raise a child in a gay relationship. You assume that a "father figure" (whatever that means) is necessary. I doubt that it is. A woman can play their role of a father (if they think that such a role is necessary) though she probably won't look like a father. They would certainly be free to have men baby-sit their children or have their children participate in organizations that expose their kids to fathers. The fact that most gays don't want to be married is irrelevant. Most people don't like to eat red peppers each day - should we, therefore outlaw daily consumption of such peppers for those who like to eat them?

-------------------------------------------------

HGROKIT, I have a Bible too. It is called "The Kramer Book" and it basically says that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with others. Okay. I don't have such a book. My point is that there are Atheists and Agnostics. To some people, the Bible is a repressive book of fiction. They believe that God does not exist. A second point in refuting those who wish to bring the Bible into the debate is that it is not fair to pick and choose. If you want to apply Biblical instruction to civil law, then all Biblical instruction should be codified. Do you really support transferring each and every Biblical advice into law?

------------------------------------------------------

WHY DO THEY NEED FOR IT TO BE *MARRIAGE*, WHY DO THEY FEEL THE NEED TO DESECRATE THE HOLY UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN IN THE EYES OF GOD WITH THEIR BUTT POKING, CRACK LAPPING, SICK PERVERTED WAYS"?!

If they can enjoy ALL the LEGAL benefits of marriage with a civil union, WHY must they feel the need to be MARRIED? That's for a MAN and a WOMAN, not dick licking fags or crack lapping lezbos.

Pale Rider, I've already answered that it one way or another. Why do heterosexuals need to be "Married"? A marriage is holy only in the minds of those who think it is holy. To some people, god does not exist. Civil unions are not the same as marriages any more than were White drinking fountains the same as Black drinking fountains. In the pure sciences, separate things might be equal, but when people are involved, separate is not equal. Next question.

--------------------------------------------------------------

" If men marry men and women marry women they can't have children."

Did your son teach you about surrogate mothers and sperm donors?

 

[musicman]

Who are you clapping for, man? You quoted everybody but Winston Churchill!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by OCA
Hehe you're gonna have to be a little tougher than that Bully, that shit about human being and death don't phase me 1 bit. Certainly after all the vile shit you've said towards the President, and I bet if I did some research I could find where you wished death, you'd think you'd grow thick skin, but I guess you truely are the little pacifist pussy I really think you are. Dismissed.

Nope, I never wished such on him, nor will I ever. Of course, I have stated that it would be amusing to see him share a cell as the bitch of a 300lb yard-bull named "Bubbles".

As for pacifism...Well, let's just say you're talking out yer ass, but that's nothing unusual for you boyo.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Well you just take a moment and pray to God for OCA then. We are all aware of your deep faith in God.

Which one..?

 

[007]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Which one..?

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. You're a Christian, you should know that.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I'd like to address what appear to be some common arguments being made here against gay marriage:

First there is the argument that it is not natural. However, there are many problems which arise from this line of reasoning. To begin, it has to be defined and agreed upon what acts are natural for a human being to engage in. Many activities such as trading on the stock market, flying in an airplane and advanced corrective surgery (such as on the eyes) are difficult to place. These are things that our ancestors certainly did not participate in and require more than the human body to perform. To say that humans can only engage in what is natural to them may involve some things which were not intended. Furthermore, it has been documented that over 300 species of vertebrate animals, including our close relatives, engage in homosexual acts and form homosexual bonds [link to article at end]. This evidence points to the idea that homosexuality is indeed quite natural.

Secondly there is the slippery slope argument. This usually involves the fear that the legalization of bestiality or polygamy is close behind the legalization of gay marriage. Every logician will tell you that the slippery slope is a fallacy. All gay marriage proponents want to change is this sentence: Any consenting adult may marry another consenting adult of the opposite sex to: Any consenting adult may marry another consenting adult. This clearly does not suggest bestiality nor polygamy.

Thirdly many discuss the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman because that is the proper way for the biology to connect. This may in fact be true but it ignores an important point. Biology is not the sole reason people get married. Many cannot have kids for various reasons (including that they don't want them). Since biology is not the sole reason for marriage, it does not seem that it can be the sole requirement for marriage. It doesn't seem that any gay marriage opponent would advocate a ban on marriage unless children result.

Fourthly, there is the argument for tradition. I will not spend much time with this argument because it is the weakest. Thomas Jefferson compared relying on tradition with requiring a man to wear the same coat he did as a boy. Society is fluid and different times demand different norms. We are all thankful that our Founding Fathers didn't rely on their traditions of monarchy when drafting our Constitution.

Finally, many of you have stated that a child needs a father and a mother. This is obvioulsy denied to a child of a gay family. However, we are not talking about adoption here. This is solely about the issue of gay marriage. The child issue is a red herring for the time being. We can debate whether or not to allow a gay married couple to adopt if and when they are allowed to marry.

I have used the term marriage in this post but that is not a necessary term. It is reasonable to have that word remain within the realm of religion and only applied to a union between a man and a woman. However, it just seems wrong to deny two loving individuals health insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc simply because they happen to be of the same sex. Not only does it seem wrong, but there seems to be no logical argument against the right for gay marriage. I welcome intelligent debate against this post because our laws must be based on logic - that is how our system works. I will reply to any reasonable attack on any part of this post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/m...tml?ex=1089777600&en=e2f8d3bb6e5200ea&ei=5070

 

[musicman]

Whether we use the term,"marriage"or "civil union", what is really at issue here is the acceptance of homosexuality. Not "tolerance", mind you - not in the "live and let live" sense, but absolute acceptance, with society's blessing. Homosexuality must be viewed as just another lifestyle choice - no better or worse than any other - and if I as much as attempt to impart any negative connotation onto it whatsoever, I am a hateful bigot. I must sit idly by while elitist educators and other cultural luminaries extol - to my children - the virtues of a behavior I know to be immoral and dangerous. This I cannot do.

Recent history has proven liberal socialists to have been dramatically, foolishly wrong in every one of their attempts to re-engineer society, and it doesn't even give them pause! They are blinded by arrogance. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans, unshielded by money and power from the consequeces of their actions, are slowly but inexorably steering this country back onto a path which is guided by common sense. We see that some restraints on human behavior are necessary, because we're the ones who suffer when those restraints are lifted or ignored.

To quote P.J. O'Rourke: "The sexual revolution is over, and the microbes won."

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. You're a Christian, you should know that.

And you're delusional.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, it has - for everybody. Remember? "...regardless of the preferences or limitations of the parties involved...". A penis and a vagina have ALWAYS been the appropriate equipment - otherwise, it's not a marriage.

Okay. according to you, a penis and vagina have always been appropriate equipment. What if the equipment does not work. For all practical purposes, it would be as if they don't have such equipment. I will ask again: If heterosexual individuals in a relationship are not capable of producing children together, can they be married? Please let me know soon. If the answer is "No", I'll inform a "married" couple that I know to surrender their marriage license.
-----------------------------------------------------

nbdysfu - Yes. Thanks for reposting my replies. I know. I am so tired of this. It is like lecturing children. These people will keep ignoring the sound and logical rebuttal to their fallacious and irrelevant arguments opposing homosexual marriage. Even after I have clearly shown, time and time again, why their claims don't "hold water" they continue to rehash the same lame rhetoric. It is as if they have learned nothing from my comments. They just close their eyes and stay secluded in their own bigoted biases. Not long ago it was "understood" that people of different religious philosophies were not to get married. If it were not for individualistic freethinking people like myself we probably would never have left that repressive and restrictive societal mindset. Oh, well. They will keep up their foolish anti-gay-marriage dribble. I have better things to do.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Yes. Thanks for reposting my replies. I know. I am so tired of this. It is like lecturing children. These people will keep ignoring the sound and logical rebuttal to their fallacious and irrelevant arguments opposing homosexual marriage. Even after I have clearly shown, time and time again, why their claims don't "hold water" they continue to rehash the same lame rhetoric. It is as if they have learned nothing from my comments. They just close their eyes and stay secluded in their own bigoted biases. Not long ago it was "understood" that people of different religious philosophies were not to get married. If it were not for individualistic freethinking people like myself we probably would never have left that repressive and restrictive societal mindset. Oh, well. They will keep up their foolish anti-gay-marriage dribble. I have better things to do.

YOUR arguments have been fallacious and irrelevant, and at times way out in left field.
YOU have been shown time and time again how illogical your rants are and how they don't hold water.
YOU are the one with the eyes closed and regurgitating rhetoric.
YOU haven't 'taught' us anything, so there is nothing to learn.
Not agreeing with homosexuality and not condoning same sex marriages doesn't make someone a bigot.
YOU can keep up your queer supporting if you wish, although it DOESN'T appear as if you have anything better to do.

Face facts, the results of the poll on this board are strikingly similar to the way the entire nation feels. You aren't going to change anyones mind, nor do I believe anyone will change yours. But get off your high horse thinking your opinion is the only valid one and anyone who disagrees is childish. THAT type of attitude is what is childish.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by jimnyc
YOUR arguments have been fallacious and irrelevant, and at times way out in left field.
YOU have been shown time and time again how illogical your rants are and how they don't hold water.
YOU are the one with the eyes closed and regurgitating rhetoric.
YOU haven't 'taught' us anything, so there is nothing to learn.
Not agreeing with homosexuality and not condoning same sex marriages doesn't make someone a bigot.
YOU can keep up your queer supporting if you wish, although it DOESN'T appear as if you have anything better to do.

Face facts, the results of the poll on this board are strikingly similar to the way the entire nation feels. You aren't going to change anyones mind, nor do I believe anyone will change yours. But get off your high horse thinking your opinion is the only valid one and anyone who disagrees is childish. THAT type of attitude is what is childish.

HERE HERE!

 

[musicman]

Matts:

For like the fourth time - "...regardless of the limitations or preferences of the parties involved.....". Can you please try to get your mind around that? It really answers all of your childish, argumentative questions, if you'll just try to comprehend and apply it.

 

[007]

Originally posted by jimnyc
YOUR arguments have been fallacious and irrelevant, and at times way out in left field.
YOU have been shown time and time again how illogical your rants are and how they don't hold water.
YOU are the one with the eyes closed and regurgitating rhetoric.
YOU haven't 'taught' us anything, so there is nothing to learn.
Not agreeing with homosexuality and not condoning same sex marriages doesn't make someone a bigot.
YOU can keep up your queer supporting if you wish, although it DOESN'T appear as if you have anything better to do.

Face facts, the results of the poll on this board are strikingly similar to the way the entire nation feels. You aren't going to change anyones mind, nor do I believe anyone will change yours. But get off your high horse thinking your opinion is the only valid one and anyone who disagrees is childish. THAT type of attitude is what is childish.

Now THAT was good...