"I don't support gay marriage" (overpopulated, community, workers)

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Yeah, it is. All of your points collapsed, so your final attempt is to say that gay marriage only affects gays.

My points collapsed? Only in your opinion.


Really, you haven't made any points or backed them up, you have just told us your "feelings".

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Annie53

My points collapsed? Only in your opinion.


Really, you haven't made any points or backed them up, you have just told us your "feelings".

This must be where you start projecting yourself onto me.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by njquestions

This must be where you start projecting yourself onto me.

Again deflecting instead of making a valid point.

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Annie53

Again deflecting instead of making a valid point.

Notice how quickly and easily I destroyed all arguments for gay marriage?

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Notice how quickly and easily I destroyed all arguments for gay marriage?

You did no such thing. Delusional much?

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Annie53

You did no such thing. Delusional much?

Sure I did. That's why you went from trying to argue to now doing this pathetic thing where you're just making random posts about nothing in order to kill time and possibly get the thread locked. LOL

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by dog8food

What do you feel when you read the thread title?

Just 20 years ago, I could make this statement and there would hardly be a cringe among a crowd.

Today, it is seen as taboo; as if a damning slander suddenly leaped out of the dark ages. Heck, someone might close this very thread.

Why is this? How is it that a societal opinion can change so quickly, and so fiercely?

Probably the same reason why if you wrote a thread title saying you do think the best job for Black People is to have them go back to being slaves. I do not really think that the change is that sudden either.

I think what tends to happen is change comes very slowly, but there is always a "tipping point" where the change suddenly cascades through the society. And if you experience that cascade it can give the IMPRESSION that the change was sudden and fierce. But actually it was a long time coming, with a lot of small hard won steps.

So I think it very rare that any substantial change is EVER sudden or quick. It can just give that impression to someone who is too close to the picture to see the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A

How can you not understand this? It's very simple. You're for any relationships between two consenting adults, right? So why is incest excluded? Better yet why stop at two? Why can three or more marry if they wanted to?

I think that is easy enough to answer. Almost insultingly so, so please do not take my explaining something so obvious and simple as an insult to your intelligence. It is genuinely not meant as one.

You see there are two things at play. Ideal on one hand. Reality on another.

IDEALLY anyone who wants to enter into a marital contract should be able to do so. I see nothing morally wrong with incest between consenting adults, and I would be GENUINELY surprised if you can come up with any moral or ethical arguments against it that are coherent or hold up to any intellectual scrutiny. And I certainly see nothing morally or ethically wrong with polygamy based on consent either.

REALITY however means resources and laws are limited in what they can allow or facilitate. It simply is not credible to implement a system that allows for any combination at all.

So the key is BALANCE. That is to say: The institution of marriage in a society should strike a balance between what the people in that society actually require and demand.... and how much what they require and demand scales with the implementation of it.

So with homosexual marriages.... a significant minority of people required it, and implemetnation and facilitation of it was relatively simple to achieve. It did not require much change to anything other than to slightly increase the types of couples who require it. So..... demand scaled quite well with implementation.

With incest however, the quantity of people demanding or seeking it is minimal to non-existent statistically. MUCH less than any useful threshold and less again than the quantity of homosexuals who sought similar. Further the complications of the people being related ALREADY means the changes to the law and institutions will be slightly higher.

So while I see no argument, morally or ethically, AGAINST incestuous marriages..... the requirement of them scales NOT AT ALL against the implementation requirements.

The same thing is true, only more so, with polygamous marriages. Again the quantity of people seeking this are a statistical non-entity. And the requirements to implement it are relatively massive compared to even homosexual or incestuous marriages. There is even a user posting regularly on this very forum who is in a long term MFF relationship with children, and he says he and people he has met like him.... simply are not seeking access to the marital institution.

I hope that clears up your question! And as I said I hope it was not so obvious and simple as to be insulting to you to spell it out.

Originally Posted by njquestions

It's interesting that you are trying to equate interracial heterosexual marriage with homosexual marriage. That's more of a reach than when I draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, which always triggers people on the left.

I would have thought vacuous nonsense would "trigger" intelligent people on ANY side. Not just one.

However while there are CERTAINLY notable and large differences between interracial heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage..... parallels can CERTAINLY be drawn between the arguments and attitudes that were expressed against both.

Much of the rhetoric and argument structures are not just similar but identical between the two. Whether they be religious (like comparing the "adam and steve" comments to the Judge in the Loving trials who declared that it was gods will the races be separate)...... or whether they be fatuous linguistic tricks (like when gay people said they just wanted equal rights they were often told "You DO have equal rights, you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else... what you want is EXTRA rights" this is EXACTLY the same argument people got when they said "inter-racial couples want equal rights" and were told "You already have them.... we all have the equal right to marry someone of our own race!")

So while I would urge EXTREME caution while paralleling the two things...... that does not mean there are not SOME parallels to validly and usefully draw.

Originally Posted by O.A.Bachlow

What's the big deal about marriage in general...

Well it is kind of a "package deal". It is the easiest way to get access to laws on things like next of kin, medical proxy, inheritance, tax rebates and much much more. Things that homosexual couples want every bit as much as heterosexual people..... without feeling they have to take more long winded and often expensive legal alternatives to achieve it.

I am certainly not one to defend the marriage institution in and of itself. It may be one of the FEW things you and I come somewhat close on agreeing on. But WHILE the institution exists I think I see no argument against opening it up to homosexual couples too.

WHETHER it should exist however is an entirely different conversation, though one very much worth having in the face of modernity.

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I think what tends to happen is change comes very slowly, but there is always a "tipping point" where the change suddenly cascades through the society. And if you experience that cascade it can give the IMPRESSION that the change was sudden and fierce. But actually it was a long time coming, with a lot of small hard won steps.

Except, as I stated, there wasn't a change at all. While gay marriage was suffering defeat after defeat at the ballot box even in deep blue states, there was no mention of it on the news. Instead, it was just endless stories rammed down people's throats about how "everyone" wanted gay marriage. Then judges had to keep on invalidating votes and it was portrayed as "the nation celebrates." Gay marriage is essentially just an endless series of lies.


That's also true of trans-sexualism, which was the next move of the left. The left just reported that "everyone" believed that trans-sexuals were normal and supported them, which is laughable. In maybe 25 years, it'll come to fruition because liberal teachers are busy in elementary schools drilling it into our kids, but not until then.


The next frontier for the left is pedophiles. It's great because every time I bring up the parallels between normalization of homosexuality and pedophilia, liberals get all offended like "how dare you, sir!!" So far, Salon and the New York Times have already published stories about how pedophilia is a lifestyle. It may take 50 years, as with homosexuality, but the left will most certainly make pedophilia normal because "don't judge." And it will also most certainly be characterized as a victory of civil rights.

[thefragile]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Except, as I stated, there wasn't a change at all. While gay marriage was suffering defeat after defeat at the ballot box even in deep blue states, there was no mention of it on the news. Instead, it was just endless stories rammed down people's throats about how "everyone" wanted gay marriage. Then judges had to keep on invalidating votes and it was portrayed as "the nation celebrates." Gay marriage is essentially just an endless series of lies.


That's also true of trans-sexualism, which was the next move of the left. The left just reported that "everyone" believed that trans-sexuals were normal and supported them, which is laughable. In maybe 25 years, it'll come to fruition because liberal teachers are busy in elementary schools drilling it into our kids, but not until then.


The next frontier for the left is pedophiles. It's great because every time I bring up the parallels between normalization of homosexuality and pedophilia, liberals get all offended like "how dare you, sir!!" So far, Salon and the New York Times have already published stories about how pedophilia is a lifestyle. It may take 50 years, as with homosexuality, but the left will most certainly make pedophilia normal because "don't judge." And it will also most certainly be characterized as a victory of civil rights.

So how again does a gay marriage affect you?

[lilyflower3191981]

In a theocracy, excluding a segment of society from full rights in that society strengthens the theocracy, providing an "out" group for the "in" group to hate — for example, sex-trade workers, people with horrifying skin diseases, and tax-collection goons (a.k.a. prostitutes, lepers, and publicans).

In my opinion, if Jesus came back tomorrow, he would hang out with these same outcasts — AND he would hang out with Hillary fans, undocumented workers, people whose skin colors differ from his, "witches," atheists, and of course those evil, evil liberals.

relax folks, most marriages fail anyway. If they want to get married, let them get married. No big deal

My nephews are straight (I hope and I think), it is not like witnessing two gay men kiss will turn them gay. Gee, I don't worry about that one bit.