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.
Same-sex marriage supporters don't want "equal marriage" for everyone.
They just want "equal marriage" for homosexuals.
That's because same-sex marriage is based on the lie that it is not an attempt to use the power of the state to force normalized homosexuality on otherwise right-thinking people.
When marriage between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman is no more respectable than a marriage between multiple partners or even close relatives, the exclusive state-implied equality of homosexuality to heterosexuality that has always been the true goal of same-sex marriage advocates will mean nothing.
Nothing I said supports your narrow point. If multiple people want to go for polygamy, then they need to show the state their need for it and how it would work. Same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage deal with the same factors; two adults. Try and figure out how polygamy would work. Would the multiple wives only be married to the one husband, or are they also married to each other. Who collects who's social security and who pays the taxes? Homosexuality is normal and has been for ever and no one is trying to force it on anyone. The only ones destroying the respectability of heterosexual marriage is you heterosexuals. You cannot even take the blame for your failed attempt at marriages and blame it on gay people. Typical cop out. And again, polygamy is more like heterosexual marriage then gay marriage is, so if anything would lead to polygamy, it would be straight marriage.
Being gay is not equivalent to being black, no matter how many times you repeat it. The analogy fails completely because one is a visible trait and the other is either an invisible trait or a behavior.
Try again.
Why don't you try again. Interracial marriage bans did not just ban blacks from marrying whites, it also banned Native Americans from marrying whites, blacks and so on and discrimination does not have to be just about race or skin color. And being gay is not a behavior, are you that dumb that you think it is, because if so, then your being straight is a behavior and why are you allowed to marry because of a behavior? And I have every reason to compare the two for the arguements against same sex marriage are the same one used against interracial marriage by bigots who could only see their own narrow views.
I'm confused on what you just said. The ideal situation is ideal, it is necessarily superior to anything else. That is the definition of ideal.
My point isn't whether or not we can attain ideal. It is whether or not we make steps toward it, or we make steps away from it.
Does same-sex marriage move us closer to ideal, or does it move us away from ideal? Does same-sex marriage promote "the public good", or does it drag us down?
I'm not going to tell anyone else what to do. I don't believe in telling others what to do. But I'm going to do and say what I believe is right. And sadly, I do not believe that pretending same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, is somehow a good thing. It is not.
You can argue that a stable gay couple could raise a child better than a meth-head single-mother. And I'm not going to argue with you on that point. But you pretend as if meth-head single-mothers are somehow endemic to society. And I do not believe they are.
Either you stand with good, or you stand against it. I'll stand with good regardless of who I offend. And my intention of doing good goes far beyond gay-marriage. And I put the blame of the slow degeneration of society squarely on the shoulders of government. And I'm tired of people on one side or the other using it to force their views on other people.
I want the government out of the marriage business, and that ultimately means you can do whatever you want. But just because I don't support a ban on same-sex couples, it doesn't mean I support them either. I just think trying to ban them does more harm than good. Let people individually decide what is best for them. A paternal government never produces good results.
If you are so worried about "traditional" marriage, then does it not make more sense to try and stifle divorce and to encourage long relationships and wether those are gay or straight marriages, as long as they stay together is what should count, not that they be straight marriages. And how does banning same sex marriages somehow encourage or better heterosexual marriages? Will more straight people want to get married if gays are banned? Will gays all of a sudden become straight and get married to the opposite sex? For what reason should we gay people be forbidden from entering civil marriages with legal protections for our relationships that supports only straight marriages? We gays are also paying taxes that end up supporting your marriages, so why are we denied getting some of what we pay into returned back to us? Fair is fair, equal is equal.
Anyone that is not insane understands that we don't live in an Ideal world. To believe that the ideal situation is inferior to reality is mindboggleling.
Not taking into accout all the variables that exist on basing whom and whom is not capable, willing and best suited to rear a child is living in fantasyland.
A loving mother able to care for her child is always more desirable than two meth-head hetrosexaul parents. Of course the Methheads are not Ideal...but are a reality.
So why debate anything? Just accept whatever your perception of imperfect as reality and don't say anything! It's really that simple!
Do you do that? No, of course you don't.
So don't whine when others stand behind their personal convictions.
Hey racism isn't ideal is it? Let's just deal with that, ok? It's reality!
If you are so worried about "traditional" marriage, then does it not make more sense to try and stifle divorce and to encourage long relationships and wether those are gay or straight marriages, as long as they stay together is what should count, not that they be straight marriages. And how does banning same sex marriages somehow encourage or better heterosexual marriages? Will more straight people want to get married if gays are banned? Will gays all of a sudden become straight and get married to the opposite sex? For what reason should we gay people be forbidden from entering civil marriages with legal protections for our relationships that supports only straight marriages? We gays are also paying taxes that end up supporting your marriages, so why are we denied getting some of what we pay into returned back to us? Fair is fair, equal is equal.
There is no such thing as "equality"..not even under the social construct of law. Life is not fair....somebody is always going to get the short end of the stick.
Got any scientific (not anecdotal) evidence of that?
You asked how society can be wiped out in a day.. Hello? But I was totally wrong....nuclear fallout can wipe society out in minutes. I apologize
The only common purpose is survival. You're wrong...again.
For somebody who is such a champion of science, I am surprised you would cling to soft science to hammer your point home. There is no hard, empirical evidence backing up any claims of your quack theory brain scans. None. This is the same context of the quantum physics argument we had in the religion thread.
Computer modeling only works as good as the parameters or the rules it's given to work within. And when you're talking about higher(est) order functions like the brain....and the universe.
It's GIGO
I'm not closed minded...I just don't think how you do.
I know very well what groupthink is...
Omg! We can all scour the web for the context that works for us!!
My point stands
Neurobiology is not 'soft science'.
The human brain is sexually dimorphic. Go look that up.
I am not referring to computer modeling. Where did you get that idea?
I don't want to argue over your observations. Because your basic observations are true in a sense. But ignores the "bigger picture".
For instance, arguing that homosexuality solves "overpopulation", is not a logical argument. Since homosexuals are basically just as likely as heterosexuals to want to have children. The solution to overpopulation is simply having fewer children(even though overpopulation isn't even a real problem at the moment).
Thus comes to point two. You claim that homosexuals are beneficial because they can adopt the children that heterosexuals don't want. Ignoring three points. First, heterosexuals shouldn't even be having children they don't want. Secondly, that the optimal adoption family would still be a man and a woman, not two men. And even then, there are no shortage of people who want to adopt "babies". In fact, people are even adopting babies from other countries because of the difficulty of adopting here, especially babies. The real problem is that no one wants to adopt older kids and teenagers. But when you see those pictures of gay Hollywood types adopting children. They are never adopting teenagers, they are adopting babies. And that was never a problem to begin with.
Everyone who isn't insane realizes that ideally, everyone would be raised by their own parents. That ideally, people would only have children that they actually want. And that ideally, those parents would be one man and one woman. And that anything else is necessarily "inferior".
Yes I said it. A single mother raising her children is inferior to a man and a woman raising their children together. And there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
Moreover, regardless of what your claims are for the benefits of homosexuality. You would think those benefits would be more easily provable. I mean, if society actually benefits from homosexuality. Wouldn't those societies in history that have allowed same-sex marriages have been more successful than the societies which did not? Why has effectively every successful civilization on Earth opposed homosexuality so vehemently that in most cases, the punishment was death? If religion is made by man, why have men been so uniformly opposed to homosexuality?
I know you want to seek to justify the existence of homosexuality. But I think you are being a bit deluded if you really believe that society benefits from it.
Look, some diversity is good, and some diversity isn't. I think it is silly to believe that all diversity is good. I mean, there is no benefit to things like "down syndrome". I don't believe blindness or deafness has any benefit either. There are countless other genetic mutations which I can assure you have no benefit to humanity whatsoever. I don't even believe that there is any real benefit to having multiple languages. And as a general rule, there is a lot of benefit to people agreeing with each other on most things. You really can't have a civilization if everyone disagrees with everyone else on everything.
Those countries that you probably like the most, like Denmark, Sweden, or whatever. Those countries(at least until recently) were about as opposite from diverse as any country has ever been. In truth, diversity is best defined as "division".
There are some kinds of division which are beneficial. Such as "division of labor". And diversity of ideas.
Most human diversity is only beneficial in those places where it came into existence. For instance, there are no benefits to being black in Siberia. The "short limbs" of Eskimos don't give you any advantages anywhere outside of the Arctic.
With that said. I'm not for repressing or oppressing anyone. I'm for being honest. Everyone is so terrified of hurting someone else's feelings, people refuse to just call a spot a spot.
Just because I recognize that one thing isn't as good as the other, it doesn't mean that I think something should be done about it. My best friend is deaf. Deafness is most surely an inferior trait. But just because I recognize that as a fact, it doesn't mean I'm advocating anything should be done about it.
As I said before, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to all marriage(at least how it works now). If marriage is to exist, it should not be a contract with the state. It should be a contract between two people. And any two people, or even more than two people, can enter into a contract with each other, regardless of what they look like. And you have no right to inject your "morality" into it. Whether it be two people, or three people, or five people, etc.
I am effectively advocating for placing society in the hands of all people individually. Rather than using a collective to force one way of thinking on everyone. And you call me the bigot?
Just because I personally believe something, doesn't mean I want government to do anything about it. I want the government to do nothing. If you disagree with me, that is your prerogative. We have the right to disagree with each other in a free society.
The problem is, no one really wants to have a free society. Everyone wants their way. And you are no different.
In a free society people convince each other that they are wrong. They don't use force.
You and your ilk are just as hypocritical as those you hate. And how dare you tell me I want to repress anyone. I'm for freedom, you are not.
A veritable field of straw men.
How about you try arguing the points I actually made, instead of misrepresenting what I posted?
Why don't you try again. Interracial marriage bans did not just ban blacks from marrying whites, it also banned Native Americans from marrying whites, blacks and so on and discrimination does not have to be just about race or skin color. And being gay is not a behavior, are you that dumb that you think it is, because if so, then your being straight is a behavior and why are you allowed to marry because of a behavior? And I have every reason to compare the two for the arguements against same sex marriage are the same one used against interracial marriage by bigots who could only see their own narrow views.
Until it has been proven as fact, you are merely stating your opinion. Homosexuality is not normal. Sexuality alone demonstrates that a man and woman were anatomically designed to be joined together.
Until it has been proven as fact, you are merely stating your opinion. Homosexuality is not normal. Sexuality alone demonstrates that a man and woman were anatomically designed to be joined together.
Until what has been proven as a fact?
There is a difference between sex ACTS and ORIENTATION. That is a FACT, for which ordinary logic applies.
Is a nun any less heterosexual if she never has sex her entire life, yet is attracted to men?
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.
