Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps if you were gay ... or knew gay people, you would understand just how ridiculous your argument is. Thinking that allowing gays to marry is just "change for the sake of change" is so ignorant that it's not even worth trying to offer up a counter explanation. You won't listen to it anyway.
Like I said, you can keep at this anti-gay nonsense, but you're done. Your side lost. End of story.
I do know and have known gay people. Your attempt to villianize me and show me to be ignorant is wrong.
Again...I am challenging you to give me a legitimate reason why we should cater to the desires of a very small minority in order to change the definition of marriage.
Quote:
And people are born gay.
Prove it please. Even if that's the case that they are, people are born with other abnormal sexual desires, such as pedophiles, or even guys that can't be held to a single monogamous relationship. Should we modify marriage to suit them?
Quote:
I know you don't want to believe it because that completely trashes the religious angle of this debate, but it is something that should be considered valid. I've never in my life EVER met a straight person who suddenly popped out of the closet as gay. There were always little telltale signs of their sexual preferences if you know what they are. You, I'm sure, probably don't know what to look for.
Are you able to make an argument that isn't based on religion? You seem to be obsessed with it.
Quote:
The point here is that, if being gay was a choice, people would be transiting between being straight, being gay, and being bisexual all the time. I've never met a solidly straight person who popped out of the closet in order to be gay ... and I've never met a gay person who suddenly decided to date members of the opposite sex.
I think you misunderstood my point. I never said that "that kind of marriage" never existed. I'm saying that gay marriage being new is NOT a compelling reason to ban it. Only those who simply don't want gays getting married due to their own personal hang-ups, phobias, and elitist ideas would ever claim that tradition warrants that gays should never be allowed to marry.
I'm only asking you to provide a reason why we need it. Can you do that? Can you make a reasonable, non-emotional, non-bigoted argument that doesn't attack religion?
Quote:
Oh puh-leease. Don't insult my intelligence. Everyone knows that religion lies at the crux of this debate including you. Trying to pretend that it doesn't is just a big, juicy lie. I followed many of the debates held in the state halls of power as the issue was being decided - especially in North Carolina where I happened to live at the time. If it wasn't for the fact that I already knew where the debates were taking place and who was doing the debating, I wouldn't have been able to tell if I was watching a debate among politicians in a government building - or if I was watching a group of pastors and priests pounding their pulpits inside a mega-church.
If religion wasn't the issue, I wouldn't have heard the words "God," "Creator," "Bible" and trashy verses from Leviticus during those deliberations.
I don't know who all you've heard talk about it, but there are people that can discuss the idea of same-gender marriage without using Leviticus. I certainly have not quoted it in our debates and you seem to be completely incapable of answering my arguments.
Quote:
What a crock of steaming, bovine excrement. I could build a bulls--t road from here to the moon with just that statement alone.
My side isn't imposing one damn thing on you. You are still allowed to marry whom you choose and live your life exactly how you want to live it. The only side imposing anything is yours ... because YOUR side is the one fighting for the denial of equal rights.
Now, if you can show me where straight Christians are being forced by law to marry a member of the same sex, then I'll start taking your accusations seriously.
Until then, I'm going to go, "Bwhahahahahahaha!" in your face and consider your assertions to be pure desperation.
Because it is.
As I said...I'm still waiting for a reasonable, thought-out argument that isn't bigoted. Can you provide one?
I do know and have known gay people. Your attempt to villianize me and show me to be ignorant is wrong.
Somehow, I just don't believe you. At the very least, I doubt those gay people that you've known were a part of your close inner circle of friends and family. I doubt they confided in you - and if any did, it was probably because you and your kind made them feel ashamed of who they were, thus, they came to you in order to find out how to stop being gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Again...I am challenging you to give me a legitimate reason why we should cater to the desires of a very small minority in order to change the definition of marriage.
That's not how we decide what our laws ought to be. We need a legitimate reason to have and enforce a law - especially ones like the gay marriage bans since they deliberately target a specific group of people. We do NOT need a legitimate reason not to have them.
Because gay sex is "icky" or because "tradition says ..." or because "the Bible commands ..." are NOT legitimate reasons to prevent gays from marrying.
And that's why this discussion is moot ... your side has already lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Prove it please. Even if that's the case that they are, people are born with other abnormal sexual desires, such as pedophiles, or even guys that can't be held to a single monogamous relationship. Should we modify marriage to suit them?
Guys are free to marry, divorce, and have affairs as often as they like, so marriage doesn't have to be modified to suit them. As far as pedophiles are concerned, how many times do we have to explain the concept of "consent" to you before you finally get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Are you able to make an argument that isn't based on religion? You seem to be obsessed with it.
An argument for what? I'm not making an argument based on religion. I'm tearing down your argument which is based on religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm only asking you to provide a reason why we need it. Can you do that? Can you make a reasonable, non-emotional, non-bigoted argument that doesn't attack religion?
Why do we need marriage at all, then? Allowing gays to marry harms no one. If religion has nothing to do with it, then there should be no reason why you cannot share the concept of marriage with homosexuals.
There is simply no justifiable reason why our society should have a "special" category of togetherness that applies only to straight couples - i.e. marriage. Everyone else can have "civil unions" or some other derivative of marriage that isn't quite marriage.
For some bizarre reason, you want to segregate the gays from yourself by inventing a different category, a different word that all means the same thing as marriage and grants all the benefits of marriage. Except that it isn't marriage. It's something else.
If religion isn't the reason, then explain why you think we need this ridiculous de facto segregation? Because like I said at the beginning of my post - politicians must justify why we need a law. They do not have to justify why we don't need one. If you have a secular reason to keep gays from marrying that goes beyond an appeal to tradition, I've yet to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I don't know who all you've heard talk about it, but there are people that can discuss the idea of same-gender marriage without using Leviticus.
I've heard the far-right politicians and Southern Bible-Belt zealots use Leviticus all the time. Not that that matters. Whether they use the Old or New Testaments, religion is not, nor will it ever, be an acceptable reason for denying a specific group of people their civil rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I certainly have not quoted it in our debates and you seem to be completely incapable of answering my arguments.
Bull. I have answered you - and I answer your arguments at some length, I might add. Just because you don't like what my answers are or because you can't trap me in some "gotchya" question doesn't mean I haven't risen to every challenge you have put to me. I doubt even the other Christians on this forum would make the claim that I am "completely incapable" of answering your arguments. On the contrary, I routinely trash them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
As I said...I'm still waiting for a reasonable, thought-out argument that isn't bigoted. Can you provide one?
No.
Because unless I'm willing to sit back and allow your right to practice your religion run roughshod over everyone else's rights; unless I am willing to agree with you and your imaginary belief that your right to practice your religion is infinite and has no restrictions AT ALL, I know full well that anything I say will be "bigoted," "unreasonable," or poorly "thought-out."
Do you think I'm so stupid that I don't know that? Do you think I am so oblivious to reality not to understand that everything short of complete submission to you, your religion, and your fallacious secular arguments will be totally unacceptable to you?
It's one thing to disagree with what I say. It's quite another to claim I haven't addressed your questions or refuted your arguments.
You remind me of Robin Williams in the movie Dead Poets Society. He would ignore his students unless they addressed him as "My captain." In that same way, you ignore all answers to your arguments unless they say what you want to hear.
I can't say that I'm surprised, because the Duggars are nitwits.
They're smart enough to know they can make a pile of cash by putting their family on public display. Nineteen kids and religious zealotry. America has always loved seeing the circus side show.
if nothing else, I give you credit for your perseverance. Even if your arguments lack substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Somehow, I just don't believe you. At the very least, I doubt those gay people that you've known were a part of your close inner circle of friends and family. I doubt they confided in you - and if any did, it was probably because you and your kind made them feel ashamed of who they were, thus, they came to you in order to find out how to stop being gay.
I'm sorry, but if that doesn't scream bigotry, I don't know what is. You apparently think everyone that disagrees with you must be a religious zealout living on a compound in Kansas or something.
I honestly don't care if you choose to believe me or not. I have sat in a telephone customer service job and had good conversations in between calls with a gay man. He and I actually got along pretty well. We didn't exactly hang out together after work...but I considered him a friend. I actually worked with several other gay people in that job where I spent 8 years of my life. In fact, my boss's boss was gay. He was a heck of a nice guy. So please, stop the elitist attitude. Believe it or not, some of us that oppose your way of thinking are actually human beings with brains that can think about the issues, and we actually know real human beings that disagree with us...and we still feel the way we feel.
Quote:
That's not how we decide what our laws ought to be. We need a legitimate reason to have and enforce a law - especially ones like the gay marriage bans since they deliberately target a specific group of people. We do NOT need a legitimate reason not to have them.
Because gay sex is "icky" or because "tradition says ..." or because "the Bible commands ..." are NOT legitimate reasons to prevent gays from marrying.
And that's why this discussion is moot ... your side has already lost.
I haven't said anything about it being icky, or the Bible. Again, that's you assigning motive to me out of bigotry. Why not actually read my arguments and go from there?
Quote:
Guys are free to marry, divorce, and have affairs as often as they like, so marriage doesn't have to be modified to suit them. As far as pedophiles are concerned, how many times do we have to explain the concept of "consent" to you before you finally get it?
My point, obviously, is that we do not invent new forms of marriage to suit a very small minority. We don't do it for serial adulterers, pedophiles, or anyone else. Everyone has the same rules.
Quote:
An argument for what? I'm not making an argument based on religion. I'm tearing down your argument which is based on religion.
Every time you argue for it, you bring up religion. I'm not the one bringing up religion.
Quote:
Why do we need marriage at all, then? Allowing gays to marry harms no one. If religion has nothing to do with it, then there should be no reason why you cannot share the concept of marriage with homosexuals.
There is simply no justifiable reason why our society should have a "special" category of togetherness that applies only to straight couples - i.e. marriage. Everyone else can have "civil unions" or some other derivative of marriage that isn't quite marriage.
For some bizarre reason, you want to segregate the gays from yourself by inventing a different category, a different word that all means the same thing as marriage and grants all the benefits of marriage. Except that it isn't marriage. It's something else.
If religion isn't the reason, then explain why you think we need this ridiculous de facto segregation? Because like I said at the beginning of my post - politicians must justify why we need a law. They do not have to justify why we don't need one. If you have a secular reason to keep gays from marrying that goes beyond an appeal to tradition, I've yet to hear it.
If you can provide a reason to eliminate marriage..ok. Go for it.
Quote:
I've heard the far-right politicians and Southern Bible-Belt zealots use Leviticus all the time. Not that that matters. Whether they use the Old or New Testaments, religion is not, nor will it ever, be an acceptable reason for denying a specific group of people their civil rights.
I'm not one of them, nor have I used religion in this argument.
Quote:
Bull. I have answered you - and I answer your arguments at some length, I might add. Just because you don't like what my answers are or because you can't trap me in some "gotchya" question doesn't mean I haven't risen to every challenge you have put to me. I doubt even the other Christians on this forum would make the claim that I am "completely incapable" of answering your arguments. On the contrary, I routinely trash them.
Yet...you've provided no logical arguments to invent a new form of marriage involving 2 people of the same gender. Instead, you accuse me of being a religious zealot in order to "counter" my religious arguments (of which I have made none).
Quote:
No.
Because unless I'm willing to sit back and allow your right to practice your religion run roughshod over everyone else's rights; unless I am willing to agree with you and your imaginary belief that your right to practice your religion is infinite and has no restrictions AT ALL, I know full well that anything I say will be "bigoted," "unreasonable," or poorly "thought-out."
Do you think I'm so stupid that I don't know that? Do you think I am so oblivious to reality not to understand that everything short of complete submission to you, your religion, and your fallacious secular arguments will be totally unacceptable to you?
It's one thing to disagree with what I say. It's quite another to claim I haven't addressed your questions or refuted your arguments.
You remind me of Robin Williams in the movie Dead Poets Society. He would ignore his students unless they addressed him as "My captain." In that same way, you ignore all answers to your arguments unless they say what you want to hear.
There you go again...suggesting it's all about religion. I have not brought up the religious argument, but you seem fixated on it.
If you have no argument, just say so. But only a bigot would expect to impose their will on others for no reason.
Yet...you've provided no logical arguments to invent a new form of marriage involving 2 people of the same gender. <snip>
If you have no argument, just say so. But only a bigot would expect to impose their will on others for no reason.
There is no need to invent a new form of marriage. The existing form of marriage (two people committing to one another in love) is just fine. The real crux of the issue is that our government gives special treatment to those who avail themselves of it. Either we need to eliminate the special treatment from our government or allow ALL committed couples access to the benefits. It is called equal protection under the law, Vizio. You ARE familiar with the concept???
Yet...you've provided no logical arguments to invent a new form of marriage involving 2 people of the same gender. Instead, you accuse me of being a religious zealot in order to "counter" my religious arguments (of which I have made none).
.
As Mystic says, who is asking for a new form of marriage? And , other than from religion(s), where is the inviolable requirement that it must consist of two people of opposite sex?
There is no need to invent a new form of marriage. The existing form of marriage (two people committing to one another in love) is just fine. The real crux of the issue is that our government gives special treatment to those who avail themselves of it. Either we need to eliminate the special treatment from our government or allow ALL committed couples access to the benefits. It is called equal protection under the law, Vizio. You ARE familiar with the concept???
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is one of the issues argued before the federal courts. The courts ruled that gay people have an equal right to marry with that of hetero people. Nothing new. Nothing Special. Nothing redefined. Just equal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
