The looming war over gay marriage

[Big Fitz]

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

 

[FA_Q2]

What I am afraid of is the normalization of “gay.” I will be forthright, I believe that being gay stems from a wiring issue and is not natural. Keep your animal kingdom bullshit to yourself here, cancer is not a natural state either and that exists in animals as well. I don’t think that it is a disease or needs to be cured though so don’t start flaming for the lack of a better analogy.

That's cool.. But there are still a lot of things about the brain that we have yet to understand. For one thing, there is an "appetite" hormone that obese people do not tend to produce enough of. This hormone was only recently discovered in lab rats, and those rats that did not have enough of it, would not feel full, the way the fit rats did. The rats who were lacking in the hormone would feel the need to eat sooner than the fit rats, and become obese quickly.
I say this, because many people erroneously believe that all that is needed by anyone, to lose weight, is diet and exercise. While it is empirically true that burning more calories than one consumes will cause a person to lose weight, there is also the issue of constantly feeling starved for nourishment, because your brain is not capable of responding to this.
Anyways, this is such a common issue that I think that there must be all sorts of possibilities that homosexuality is something that some people are born with, or at least are born with certain implications that would greatly increase their chances of being homosexual.

My belief that it is not meant to be is simple – male and female exist for procreation and male/male, female/female cannot procreate therefore gay relationships is not how it is supposed to work.

Not all males and females who marry, do it because they intend to procreate. Not all males and females even CAN procreate. Also, it is not a social stygma to choose not to have children, so using the argument that having children or planning on it, should somehow be a prerequisite to marriage is not conducive to even the heterosexual marriage argument, much less the homosexual one.

I also do not think that gay is a choice. I sure as hell never chose to become attracted to women, it just happened and I feel the same way with gays. I really do not care whether it is behavioral or genetic; it does not matter because it is not a choice. I fear that if it is normalized that it may become that way though. I do not want to hear our future children go “hey I have had bad luck with the ladies so I think I’ll try a dude.”

Wait now.. You don't want it to be normalized, yet...

This fear is NOT sufficient to take away the ability (yea, I didn’t say right since that seems to be a sore spot) to get married. I do not believe in oppression just because I don’t approve of the behavior.

You support it, then? WOW, thats good news!! =)

Apologies if my position was not clear. I have reservations that I believe are very valid and are shared within the anti gay marriage community but it is clear to me that these reservations are NOT sufficient to deny gays the ability to marry. I think it is interesting that many here say it is not a right. I don’t see how whether or not it is a right matters. You need sufficient reason to deny someone the ability to do anything including marriage and I cannot see a proper claim to this.
Also, I realize that not all couples have children nor should they have to but the family unit is one of the cornerstones of marriage. That does not mean that it is the only reason to marry and arguing this as some have is dishonest. Another cornerstone is sharing a life and devotion with another person. While the first is not as attainable for gays, barring adoption, the latter is also very important and should, no must, be allowed for gay couples as well. There are many other reasons as well.
I also agree completely with the brain statement. Gay, to me, is not a choice to the majority. Sure, there are most likely some that choose that path but I believe that most are that way as a matter of genes, experience and other factors beyond your control.

But I cannot agree completely. A civil union is not the same thing. Civil unions of gays, do not allow for a survivor to get certain benefits, a whole plethora of them, that they would otherwise receive in a marriage.

Thank you for the clarification! I was unaware of this and that changes things a bit. Equal rights should mean EQUAL RIGHTS. That argument can also go both ways – why are the anti gay marriage proponents fighting OVER A WORD!

Pro
Females could reproduce on their own. Parthenogenesis is possible in mammals.

Please….. I am talking about normal likely scenarios here, not fantastical possibilities. Yes, it may be POSSIBLE but has no bearing on the point. Particularly since I feel that is not a good reason to deny the ability to marry.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no straight right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

 

[Father Time]

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

 

[JD_2B]

Apologies if my position was not clear. I have reservations that I believe are very valid and are shared within the anti gay marriage community but it is clear to me that these reservations are NOT sufficient to deny gays the ability to marry. I think it is interesting that many here say it is not a right. I don’t see how whether or not it is a right matters. You need sufficient reason to deny someone the ability to do anything including marriage and I cannot see a proper claim to this.
Also, I realize that not all couples have children nor should they have to but the family unit is one of the cornerstones of marriage. That does not mean that it is the only reason to marry and arguing this as some have is dishonest. Another cornerstone is sharing a life and devotion with another person. While the first is not as attainable for gays, barring adoption, the latter is also very important and should, no must, be allowed for gay couples as well. There are many other reasons as well.
I also agree completely with the brain statement. Gay, to me, is not a choice to the majority. Sure, there are most likely some that choose that path but I believe that most are that way as a matter of genes, experience and other factors beyond your control.

Thank you for clarifying. =) I respect that.

But I cannot agree completely. A civil union is not the same thing. Civil unions of gays, do not allow for a survivor to get certain benefits, a whole plethora of them, that they would otherwise receive in a marriage.

Thank you for the clarification! I was unaware of this and that changes things a bit. Equal rights should mean EQUAL RIGHTS. That argument can also go both ways – why are the anti gay marriage proponents fighting OVER A WORD!

I'm telling ya- In a civil union, nobody is entitled to even insurance benefits in most cases. That precludes the bigger picture like death benefits, and intestate probate issues of legacies and trusts. Civil Unions are a far cry from a marriage, and the important thing that gays are crying out for, is equal protections, as is actually established in the Constitution. Not for gays, in particular, but for all citizens to have equal protections. Now, I think that insurance, wills, trusts, death benefits, and other types of benefits that people who are in a civil union do not qualify for, are all protective, in nature, of the well being of the family unit.

Here is an excellent website which lists all the different types of benefits that gays who are in a civil union are not entitled to, that married people are.. There are actually more than 1100 rights that married people are awarded, that gay civil unions are not. You will be more than just a little shocked, and this pdf document is just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.nhftm.org/Xtras/documents/Marriage_v_CU.pdf

this is another good source, for more info:

About Civil Unions

You can google "civil union" and "benefits", and get a better idea of all the stuff that anyone else is entitled to, that gays are not, on account of being in a same sex relationship versus an opposite sex relationship. It is really very arrogant of the government to deny these rights to gays, if you ask me.

 

[Big Fitz]

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

WhinewhineWHINEwhinewhine....

Get a lawyer, write a civil contract and be done with it. Call yourselves the mom and mom for all I care.

So all this is about taxes dodges, inheritance and adopting kids then? I find it hard to believe. You fight too hard to make me believe that this is anything but a crusade to destroy traditional values by forcing inclusion things contrary to them out of pretty much spiteful zeal.

 

[JD_2B]

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

WhinewhineWHINEwhinewhine....

Get a lawyer, write a civil contract and be done with it. Call yourselves the mom and mom for all I care.

So all this is about taxes dodges, inheritance and adopting kids then? I find it hard to believe. You fight too hard to make me believe that this is anything but a crusade to destroy traditional values by forcing inclusion things contrary to them out of pretty much spiteful zeal.

Then divorced people should not get married either, and brother in laws should take care of their dead brother's wives, and men and women should be prosecuted criminally for failing to pay child support, etc, etc..

Whinewhine fucking whine.

Stop whining about traditional values, when you know damn well that sexuality has nothing to do with values. If being among those having "right" sexual preference (heterosexuality), means that heterosexuals are the poster boys and girls for morals and ethics, then I GUESS you could explain all that other bullshit away for the rest of the class???

I thought not.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then divorced people should not get married either, and brother in laws should take care of their dead brother's wives, and men and women should be prosecuted criminally for failing to pay child support, etc, etc..

you know damn well that sexuality has nothing to do with values.

Sexuality has to do with one thing. Procreation. If it hadn't been made so much fun, we'd never have kids because of the pain. Cliche but true. The family unit is the result of properly functioning sexuality as a way to perpetuate the species. This is why I consider liberalism to be a psychological disease, it is intrinsically nihilistic when you boil away the cover.

If being among those having "right" sexual preference (heterosexuality), means that heterosexuals are the poster boys and girls for morals and ethics,

False analogy for deliberate misrepresentation of the point.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

WhinewhineWHINEwhinewhine....

Get a lawyer, write a civil contract and be done with it. Call yourselves the mom and mom for all I care.

So all this is about taxes dodges, inheritance and adopting kids then? I find it hard to believe. You fight too hard to make me believe that this is anything but a crusade to destroy traditional values by forcing inclusion things contrary to them out of pretty much spiteful zeal.

If the stength and virtue of you marriage is underlined by a man kissing his husband or a woman taking a wife, then it is your relationship is needs examining, not theirs.

 

[Father Time]

So all this is about taxes dodges, inheritance and adopting kids then? I find it hard to believe. You fight too hard to make me believe that this is anything but a crusade to destroy traditional values by forcing inclusion things contrary to them out of pretty much spiteful zeal.

Why yes Big Fitz it's all a big conspiracy theory to destroy traditional values for the lulz.

You honestly don't think inheritance, adopting kids, and tax breaks aren't a good enough reason? Those things seem like they would have a big impact in someone's life (maybe not so much tax breaks).

 

[Father Time]

How would gay marraige even destroy 'traditional values'?

Is allowing gays to marry going to stop you from having a nuclear family?

 

[FA_Q2]

Nothing for me Fitz?

 

[Qball]

So all this is about taxes dodges, inheritance and adopting kids then? I find it hard to believe. You fight too hard to make me believe that this is anything but a crusade to destroy traditional values by forcing inclusion things contrary to them out of pretty much spiteful zeal.

Why yes Big Fitz it's all a big conspiracy theory to destroy traditional values for the lulz.

You honestly don't think inheritance, adopting kids, and tax breaks aren't a good enough reason? Those things seem like they would have a big impact in someone's life (maybe not so much tax breaks).

They're not a good enough reason because they're not exclusive to marriage in the first place.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I find it fascinating that people who oppose ssm never argue against ssm, but always against marriage itself.

 

[JD_2B]

Then divorced people should not get married either, and brother in laws should take care of their dead brother's wives, and men and women should be prosecuted criminally for failing to pay child support, etc, etc..

you know damn well that sexuality has nothing to do with values.

Sexuality has to do with one thing. Procreation. If it hadn't been made so much fun, we'd never have kids because of the pain. Cliche but true. The family unit is the result of properly functioning sexuality as a way to perpetuate the species. This is why I consider liberalism to be a psychological disease, it is intrinsically nihilistic when you boil away the cover.

Do you really think that the percentage of the population being gay, has somehow increased in the past, oh, say 10,000 years? Because the last time I checked, homosexuality has been around since old testament times, which should at LEAST tell you that it has been of some kind of regularly occurring phenomenon for thousands of years.. if not from the dawn of time. In fact, if one believes that God is a male, and that Adam, another male, was spawned from Him, then it stands to reason (with faith of course) that the first love of ANY male, was indeed another MALE.
Knowing the aforementioned facts (plus belief), why are you using the angle that the only reason for people to marry is to procreate? Or that procreation will somehow cease to continue, causing annihilation of mankind? That is QUITE a load, if you ask me.

If being among those having "right" sexual preference (heterosexuality), means that heterosexuals are the poster boys and girls for morals and ethics,

False analogy for deliberate misrepresentation of the point.

No... The "point" was that marriage between males and females being changed in any way was destructive to tradition and morality, and overall, decency.
My contention stands: If everything legal should be based on morality and decency and integrity, and tradition, then you can't pick and choose as to which aspects of tradition, morality, integrity and decency to play into. If all of those values are intermingled, and should define our legal system, then those values should be treasured by their original standard, not some subjective homophobic rejection of gays, based on the fear that society will self destruct just because gays can marry.
Society did not self destruct when people began to cohabitate outside of marriage. Society was not destroyed when divorced people began to remarry a different person from their original spouses. Society will NOT be destroyed by allowing gays to marry, either.

 

[Big Fitz]

:::Surveying the frenzied hoard of relativism junkies:::

Yep. Not worth it. I leave you to your delusions of phantom inequality.

 

[Father Time]

:::Surveying the frenzied hoard of relativism junkies:::

Yep. Not worth it. I leave you to your delusions of phantom inequality.

Come back when you have a real argument or any real points.

Or at least something to back up your flimsy points.

 

[logical4u]

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population. If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children. Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.
The arguement of all married people not having children could be valid if that were happening over a large percentage of the population. It isn't. It is more beneficial for the gov to include that small percentage, than place unenforceable qualifiers in place.
Those for homosexual marriage cannot demonstrate with facts any similar benefit to the gov for those 'extra' rights. If they could, it would not matter what any other citizens felt, they would also be given 'extra' rights.

 

[Father Time]

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population. If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children. Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.
The arguement of all married people not having children could be valid if that were happening over a large percentage of the population. It isn't. It is more beneficial for the gov to include that small percentage, than place unenforceable qualifiers in place.
Those for homosexual marriage cannot demonstrate with facts any similar benefit to the gov for those 'extra' rights. If they could, it would not matter what any other citizens felt, they would also be given 'extra' rights.

Gays can always adopt or use sperm/egg donation. Oh and how do couples who don't marry fit (and have kids) into your view of marraige.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You know what? You're right. Therefore, no gay right to marry either. Why should they be allowed special rights? Wow. crazy. Right back to square one!

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population.

When has that ever been an issue?

If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children

.
?

Lotsa kids in the ghetto and it's all fucked up.


Only old folk in the Foothills, and it's damned nice and peaceable.

1Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.

You can't be serious here...

And since when are rights determined by how many kids you pop out? Hell, by your 'reasoning', we should be giving the Mormons and the Mexicans anything they ask for.