Author Topic: Gay Marriage (Read 11797 times)

Silat · « **Reply #45 on:** June 23, 2005, 06:52:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... sorry... didn't see the smoke and mirrors aproach.

Divorce is also eroding at the foundation of the concept of marriage. This is a valid point. It is not an excuse to continue to throw other sources of erosion in there too.

So... in a thread about gay marriages, pointing that other things are even worse to the concept of marriage is a bit irrelevant. Once again... if you have to point a finger and say "what about them?!?!" then you've lost.

So Mini if Gay marriage is given equal rights will you be tempted?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #46 on:** June 23, 2005, 09:06:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
Doesn't work, or has some issues? Being the child of divorce had some issues for me (very much like your examples), but all in all it ended up working out pretty well. Being less wealthy and growing up in an upper middle class neighborhood has some issues, being the child of an interracial marriage has issues, being the child of handicapped parents has issues, being a child with negelectful parents (TV babysitter/workaholic father, etc.) has issues.

There are numerous "less than optimal" parenting situations around. But in the end, beyond clearly threatening absuive situations, people seem to grow up and get on with their lives.

Charon

I was/am a child of divorce also. I can say speaking for me I suffered greatly by not having that father figure around. Took paths I probably never otherwise would have. But I was also 13 at the time my parents split. My sister was 6
I could see the effect on her also. Fortunately eventually my uncle moved in with us for a bit and at least for her, semi took on that role.
But at least it was a steady adult male presence.

Yes in each of those cases there are "issues"
But n the case of a gay couple raising a child it is far less likely there will be a steady or even semi steady presence of a member of the opposite sex then in a gay one.
In your cases there are issues yes. but for the most part are involuntary circumstances
In the case of a gay couple it is a voluntary choice to subject a child to that situation which they might otherwise not need to be subjected to.

And just for the record I have a gay male couple that live right next door to me who are in complete and utter agreement with me on this.
They wont adopt any children for exactly the reasons I mentioned.

Ok perhaps your right. it is issues.
but you (not you specifically)are still intentionally subjecting children to circumstances they need not be subjected to and otherwise wouldnt be.

Toad · « **Reply #47 on:** June 23, 2005, 09:23:08 PM »

Is the issue of gay marriage within you or outside of you?

If you're not contemplating or in a gay marriage, it's outside of you.

Why do you worry about it if it doesn't really concern/involve you?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #48 on:** June 23, 2005, 10:24:19 PM »

I just gotta ask this. Gays say this is a discrimination issue I say well fine we are discriminating against them by not letting them marry the same sex.

But why stop there? YOU DONT THINK IT WILL STOP THEIR DO YOU? Why not let men and woman who are Zoophilias marry who they deem is their true love.

Why can't Zoophillias enjoy the same love, companionship, and tax benifits that Gays and Straits do?

Who are we to discriminate/why stop there?

Edit:

I've asked this question about this slippery slope many times. We start redefining things and there's no way to stop it.

The answer I have recieved is "people wont do that" "that's insane" or "people arent that crazy" They used to say that about gays and now they have a parade in every city.

Still think no way check on the zoophilia recources on the right of this page http://www.zoophile.net/zoophilia.php

Chairboy · « **Reply #49 on:** June 23, 2005, 10:38:11 PM »

Gosh, GS, I suppose you could argue that slippery slope began 150 years ago when blacks were allowed to marry in the US. I think that was a pretty darn good development, but there were plenty of people at the time who made the same argument you are.

150 years from now, are you going to be looked at the same way as we look back on those people?

The slippery slope seems to be headed in the right direction, in my eyes. Your argument is classic strawman.

Toad · « **Reply #50 on:** June 23, 2005, 10:42:23 PM »

How about we stop it whenever there is no consent between the potential partners, as in Zoophillia?

I don't think the Ewe can really respond and consent when some guy whispers "I love Ewe!" in her ear.

This isn't the case with homosexuals is it? When they get hitched, don't both people involved still say "I do"?

Now a sheep and (let's just pick a stereotype at random) and a Marine standing before the altar, the Marine says "I do" and the sheep probably says "Bah!", right? Not really consent, as I see it. Perhaps the opposite.

OK, Guns... I admit using a Marine was an unfair shot at ya. I really should have made it a Sailor!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #51 on:** June 23, 2005, 11:46:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Now a sheep and (let's just pick a stereotype at random) and a Marine standing before the altar, the Marine says "I do" and the sheep probably says "Bah!", right? Not really consent, as I see it. Perhaps the opposite.

OK, Guns... I admit using a Marine was an unfair shot at ya. I really should have made it a Sailor!

I think you made the better argument but you had to go there

Chairboy you make a good argument as well but I have to point out how much more is "acceptable" in society nowadays vrs 150 years ago. Yes theirs still groups trying to hold on to the "good ole days" but the main theme is "tolerance" "multi-culturalism" and "diversity".

I think both are acts against nature itself what what the hay. Why don't we redefine what is natural and what isn't. That way we don't descriminate against the Zoophiles. They're people too and they have the right not to be offended just like gays...right?

Toad · « **Reply #52 on:** June 23, 2005, 11:53:03 PM »

C'mon Guns... don't tell me you're that sensitive!

I'll apologize if you like.

As to "natural/unnatural", I kinda agree with ya. After all, the front peg looks designed to match up with the front hole.

BUT if there's consent from both parties, I think it is their business, not mine.

With the "zoo" guys, there can only be consent from one party... that's not a good thing.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #53 on:** June 23, 2005, 11:57:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
C'mon Guns... don't tell me you're that sensitive!

I'll apologize if you like.

As to "natural/unnatural", I kinda agree with ya. After all, the front peg looks designed to match up with the front hole.

BUT if there's consent from both parties, I think it is their business, not mine.

With the "zoo" guys, there can only be consent from one party... that's not a good thing.

tis a strange world we live in. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Mini D · « **Reply #54 on:** June 24, 2005, 04:52:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
I don't think I did. I pointed out that any current erosion of marriage has had nothing to do with gays.

I'm sorry, but this is a play on words and outright fallacy. Are you saying that gay marriage has nothing to do with gays?

Quote

Further, I fail to see (and you fail to address) what some general issue like divorce or a gay marriage has to do with any individual couple's marriage vows.

I didn't know I had to establish this. Fundamentally, it's a circular argument and is pointless to pursue. How marriage is defined affects everyone who is married.

Quote

My marriage is not erroded by anybody elses behavior. Other people's behavior had no influence on my decision to get married, or how I view my vows.

A play on words, once again. The definition of marriage is eroding. If you are married, the institution is changing around you.

In the same regard, why is it important to be married at all? I mean... what's the big deal? For gays or for hetero couples? I don't have any objection to gays receiving the benifits of medical coverage as well as the curse of dink taxation. I do have an issue with trying to change the definition of marriage to accomodate people who feel left out because they don't fit.

Quote

I didn't say that. I said: "If anything, homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and putting so much importance on it, is somewhat quaint and encouraging, IMO. An optimal religious goal for society where heterosexuals are concerned."

That's a very narrow viewpoint to take. I don't believe it's the optimal religious goal of any society to regard a homosexual couple the same way as a hetrosexual couple. As a matter of fact, I believe this cannot occur unless there is some kind of heavy handed restrictions placed on religion entirely.

Quote

Is not a monogamous, lifelong committed coupling an optimal goal where marriage is concerned for most religions? Where do I talk about “better” than married folk? All married folk should fall into this category.

Ah... let's focus on the areas we want to highlight and pretend it has nothing to do with a man and a woman. There is a fundamental shift in the institution of marriage that is required to occur to acocmodate this. Surely you agree with this... right?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of it because it boils down to the "if they're really happy together they should be able to get married" defense. This is not what is being discussed. Well being and compatibility have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It has to do with an institution being re-defined. Argue that divorce does that to, or that domestic violence and promiscuity do that. Just realize that gay marriage is being lumped in with those things. That is not good.

Mini D · « **Reply #55 on:** June 24, 2005, 04:55:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
I don’t think that he was drawing a correlation to something worse at all. He was pointing out something very direct: don’t blame gays for the erosion of marriage so far.

Umm... I'm not blaming gays for the erosion of marriage. I'm saying gay mariage is something that erodes the institution.

There is no exclusivity in that. Using the "let's put this in perspective" aproach does not help. Citing other things that have eroded marriage WAY more than this does not help. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with the point of discussion.

thrila · « **Reply #56 on:** June 24, 2005, 05:13:23 PM »

There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans. The argument it is against nature is flawed.

Sandman · « **Reply #57 on:** June 24, 2005, 05:15:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by thrila
There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans. The argument it is against nature is flawed.

Maybe they were exposed to it and they caught the disease.

Toad · « **Reply #58 on:** June 24, 2005, 05:20:07 PM »

Not so much nature as design. If, like the universe, life is to keep expanding there has to be procreation. Homosexuality doesn't provide that, so that's "against design".

Using a screwdriver as a hammer works after a fashion in limited instances but in the long run it really doesn't work to build things.

However, you want to beat on nails with your screwdriver.... it's your screwdriver.

Mini D · « **Reply #59 on:** June 24, 2005, 05:28:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by thrila
There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans. The argument it is against nature is flawed.

I've never used this argument... but there's a flaw with your logic here. In nature, this is a self correcting condition. Homosexuality would be removed from the gene pool.