What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).

Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".

.

traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....

And yet several states will only allow 1st cousins to marry if they can prove that one or both are incapable of having children. So right there is proof that, in those states at the minimum, marriage is absolutely considered more than about having and raising children.

seems like that law is more about preventing too closely related offspring....

 

[KevinWestern]

traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?

Here’s the thing. There are always going to be gay people, and they’re going to always be adopting/having kids, period. You can’t stop this. So, either you deny them the right to share assets, insurance, ect (and proactively hurt the children involved in those relationships), or you allow them to receive those benefits. That's one way of looking at it.

Secondly, I don’t agree with your argument that ‘because the household is same sex the kid will be adversely affected’.

But what does adversely affect children? It's things like when a child is abandoned, or when a child has an abusive dad, or when the child has a mom that doesn't care about him/her, or when a child has uneducated/unmotivated parents that don't push him/her to succeed. That's what you should at least focus on first, in my opinion, if you're worried about the well being of our country's youth.

Obviously, you agree that gay parents are just as capable as straight parents of being loving and supporting of their kids, right? So what’s the issue?

Quick question…

If there was an orphan, would you rather see that kid grow up without parents (in an institution) or with a loving, stable, same-sex couple?

in the cases where gays use sperm donors or surrogates...

why is it right to deny a kid his real mother or father.....? what about his civil rights....??

Aren't there hundreds of thousands of kids right now in the US (not sure of the exact number) needing to be adopted? I'm sorry, but they've already been denied that right and we need to do our best to get them into loving homes. Gay marriage will add greatly to the pool of qualified loving parents, and will get those kids out of the institutions and orphanages and into stable homes.

And again (in your lens), don't you think things like abuse, abandonment, not caring are things that are much more damaging than two parents simply being the same sex?

Shouldn't that be your #1 starting place if you're concerned about the well being of our youth?


.

 

[G.T.]

that's bullshit...this country was established by religious people.....and laws reflected their morals right from the beginning...

No, the Laws reflect common sense laws for any society.

Or else, it would be "law" to love thy neighbor as thyself. (it's not).


But if you're going to pretend that "thou shalt not murder" is somehow fucking unique to your Religion, have a cookie because that's retarded and cookies seem to really do it for retarded people, like they really appreciate them in a way a new child really appreciates the newness of life.

It's amazing.

"common sense" comes from a lot of religious beliefs as well.....in fact most religions are based in natural law to begin with...

as a Secularist you want to marginalize religion as being something 'hokey'.....but you would be wrong.....relativism is way more 'hokey' than most major religions all of which have common sense truths running through them...

you might ask yourself why the 10 Commandments are hanging in the Supreme Court....

amazing...

Relativism is where Religions contrived their "morals." And, ya can't prove otherwise.

 

[52ndStreet]

traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?

That is opinion, not fact.

Same goes for infertile couples wanting to raise children.

you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....

when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....

despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....

The homosexual marriage issue is just part of the larger demoralization, and slow decline
of an American empire, and society that is following in the foot steps of many past
societies, ie the Roman, and Greek empires are prime examples of countries
that allowed homosexuality to florish, and saw their societies degeneration, and
then invasion by barbarians, who then proceeded to loot and pillage and destroy those countries.

 

[bendog]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

No one doubts this.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it's unreal."

-- Georgia Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart, quoted by the Marietta Daily Journal, arguing against same-sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

Are joint tax returns and social security spousal benefits denied to opposite sex married couples who don't have children?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

No one doubts this.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it's unreal."

-- Georgia Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart, quoted by the Marietta Daily Journal, arguing against same-sex marriage.

What prevents a man and a woman doing exactly the same thing, now?

 

[KevinWestern]

in the cases where gays use sperm donors or surrogates...

why is it right to deny a kid his real mother or father.....? what about his civil rights....??

How about the kid should just be happy to be alive, because if it wasn't for the gay couple reaching to the sperm donor they simply wouldn't. Right?

Exist vs. not exist. I'll choose the former. You?

.

 

[G.T.]

That is opinion, not fact.

Same goes for infertile couples wanting to raise children.

you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....

when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....

despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....

The homosexual marriage issue is just part of the larger demoralization, and slow decline
of an American empire, and society that is following in the foot steps of many past
societies, ie the Roman, and Greek empires are prime examples of countries
that allowed homosexuality to florish, and saw their societies degeneration, and
then invasion by barbarians, who then proceeded to loot and pillage and destroy those countries.

I'm sorry, I thought only buildings with weak foundations crumbled into themselves.

I think we are headed to an even more moral society, and I see it every day.

To you: freedom of expression is bad when it's using things you find bad or icky, like words or sex.

To me, considering words "bad words" and giving a fuck about other people's sexuality is frivolous and has no logical standing or backbone, especially in a discussion about freedom.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That is opinion, not fact.

Same goes for infertile couples wanting to raise children.

you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....

when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....

despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....

Moral Law based on majority opinion is pretty much the antithesis of individualism. so, apparently you "sing it but don't bring it," in a way.

I mean - you love the US, but are in favor of "majority rules." It's a pretty weird paradigm for the sane.

moral laws based on majority opinion simply reflect society....as long as no religion is being established...

go vote for gay marriage in the state of your choice.....hey if the majority agrees you got your wish....

 

[Nosmo King]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

Who ever said a heterosexual married couple has to rear children? Where in the marriage license does it say in order to benefit from marriage you must rear children?

Try again.

 

[bendog]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

No one doubts this.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it's unreal."

-- Georgia Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart, quoted by the Marietta Daily Journal, arguing against same-sex marriage.

What prevents a man and a woman doing exactly the same thing, now?

Pardon, I was obscure. "No one doubts this" is a catch phrase for a fictional character named Tawmy, on Kissing Suzy Kolber, who is used to illustrate the ignorance, parochialism, bigotry and general drunken asshole boorishness of many Boston Patriot fans.

Wasnt' this the premise of some stupd non-funny comedy movie a few years ago? It's patently stupid to think there's a huge issue of straight guys will pretend to be gay so their brofriend can suck off their insurance.

 

[G.T.]

you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....

when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....

despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....

Moral Law based on majority opinion is pretty much the antithesis of individualism. so, apparently you "sing it but don't bring it," in a way.

I mean - you love the US, but are in favor of "majority rules." It's a pretty weird paradigm for the sane.

moral laws based on majority opinion simply reflect society....as long as no religion is being established...

go vote for gay marriage in the state of your choice.....hey if the majority agrees you got your wish....

You are ignorant of our Country, which is ironic.

Our Country is one where Rights cannot be taken away by majority opinion. That is the way we do business.

Here, you're basically saying anything goes as long as it's majority opinion.

You lack the knowledge of individualism and its history. That's apparent.

I'm sure you won't whine when "majority" favors gay marriage, either.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

that's bullshit...this country was established by religious people.....and laws reflected their morals right from the beginning...

No, the Laws reflect common sense laws for any society.

Or else, it would be "law" to love thy neighbor as thyself. (it's not).


But if you're going to pretend that "thou shalt not murder" is somehow fucking unique to your Religion, have a cookie because that's retarded and cookies seem to really do it for retarded people, like they really appreciate them in a way a new child really appreciates the newness of life.

It's amazing.

"common sense" comes from a lot of religious beliefs as well.....in fact most religions are based in natural law to begin with...

.

.

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g]Lewis Black - The Old Testament - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, the Laws reflect common sense laws for any society.

Or else, it would be "law" to love thy neighbor as thyself. (it's not).


But if you're going to pretend that "thou shalt not murder" is somehow fucking unique to your Religion, have a cookie because that's retarded and cookies seem to really do it for retarded people, like they really appreciate them in a way a new child really appreciates the newness of life.

It's amazing.

"common sense" comes from a lot of religious beliefs as well.....in fact most religions are based in natural law to begin with...

as a Secularist you want to marginalize religion as being something 'hokey'.....but you would be wrong.....relativism is way more 'hokey' than most major religions all of which have common sense truths running through them...

you might ask yourself why the 10 Commandments are hanging in the Supreme Court....

amazing...

Relativism is where Religions contrived their "morals." And, ya can't prove otherwise.

how can that be....? relativism by definition has no morality....

 

[bendog]

you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....

when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....

despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....

The homosexual marriage issue is just part of the larger demoralization, and slow decline
of an American empire, and society that is following in the foot steps of many past
societies, ie the Roman, and Greek empires are prime examples of countries
that allowed homosexuality to florish, and saw their societies degeneration, and
then invasion by barbarians, who then proceeded to loot and pillage and destroy those countries.

I'm sorry, I thought only buildings with weak foundations crumbled into themselves.

I think we are headed to an even more moral society, and I see it every day.

To you: freedom of expression is bad when it's using things you find bad or icky, like words or sex.

To me, considering words "bad words" and giving a fuck about other people's sexuality is frivolous and has no logical standing or backbone, especially in a discussion about freedom.

The British Empire collapsed due to Oscar Wilde.

 

[NYcarbineer]

society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....

in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....

When there's no proof of God, and no forced Religious Law in a free Country, than God-based morals need not be discussed when arguing Civil Law.

that's bullshit...this country was established by religious people.....and laws reflected their morals right from the beginning...

Where does it say in the Bible that women should not vote?

 

[G.T.]

"common sense" comes from a lot of religious beliefs as well.....in fact most religions are based in natural law to begin with...

as a Secularist you want to marginalize religion as being something 'hokey'.....but you would be wrong.....relativism is way more 'hokey' than most major religions all of which have common sense truths running through them...

you might ask yourself why the 10 Commandments are hanging in the Supreme Court....

amazing...

Relativism is where Religions contrived their "morals." And, ya can't prove otherwise.

how can that be....? relativism by definition has no morality....

Because Religiously written morals were derrived from men, not from a deity.

They're arrived at based on reason.

Which is why you couldn't really name one of the main morals that I can't come to with logic, meaning I wouldnt need Religion at all to reach said conclusion.

 

[G.T.]

The homosexual marriage issue is just part of the larger demoralization, and slow decline
of an American empire, and society that is following in the foot steps of many past
societies, ie the Roman, and Greek empires are prime examples of countries
that allowed homosexuality to florish, and saw their societies degeneration, and
then invasion by barbarians, who then proceeded to loot and pillage and destroy those countries.

I'm sorry, I thought only buildings with weak foundations crumbled into themselves.

I think we are headed to an even more moral society, and I see it every day.

To you: freedom of expression is bad when it's using things you find bad or icky, like words or sex.

To me, considering words "bad words" and giving a fuck about other people's sexuality is frivolous and has no logical standing or backbone, especially in a discussion about freedom.

The British Empire collapsed due to Oscar Wilde.

Have you ever been to Britain?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Moral Law based on majority opinion is pretty much the antithesis of individualism. so, apparently you "sing it but don't bring it," in a way.

I mean - you love the US, but are in favor of "majority rules." It's a pretty weird paradigm for the sane.

moral laws based on majority opinion simply reflect society....as long as no religion is being established...

go vote for gay marriage in the state of your choice.....hey if the majority agrees you got your wish....

You are ignorant of our Country, which is ironic.

Our Country is one where Rights cannot be taken away by majority opinion. That is the way we do business.

Here, you're basically saying anything goes as long as it's majority opinion.

You lack the knowledge of individualism and its history. That's apparent.

I'm sure you won't whine when "majority" favors gay marriage, either.

where in the Constitution does it say gay marriage is a right....?

did some lefty lawyer sniff it out from the same place they found the 'right to abortions'....?