Gay Marraige

[CKent]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: kogase
The main distinction to be made between same-sex marriage and bestiality/pedophilia is that the former is a binding agreement between two consenting adults, just as opposite-sex marriage is, while the latter two are not.

An animal can consent to sex. Maybe not all, but there's been cases of humans being on the receiving side of a horse or dog.

Until they can sign the dotted line I think it's more than fair to keep bestiality illegal. Added bonus is occasionally reading about some farmer who got caught

 

[Tab]

Yes, they should be able to get married. I think we're going to have to wait for some of the bigots to die off...

Democracy and America are slow at times...

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: RichardE
Kids In gay marriage do fine

The CBS News website is not exactly an authoritative source of information on anything, although you at least took the time to refer to some outside information. Also, it seems like the article carefully avoids mentioning the sexual orientation of kids raised by gay couples. Gender identity is mentioned, but it's not always the same thing in news articles.

A good deal of the micro-sized article talks about the differences between heterosexual and homosexual single moms. That's not the whole story.

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm

a christian website is the last place to look for science. they ones bending science are the ones that deep down believe telling fibs to save souls is justified. its what lets them push lies on children in abstinence programs, push lies against evolution etc.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: paulney
As long as they don't try to bring up kids in their 'family', I'm fine with that

Why? If all of the sudden a large percentage of children raised by gay parents become gay themselves, it can be shown that homosexuality is a choice for some people. If not, then what's the harm?

An invalid argument exception was thrown by your post at line 8

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: RichardE
Kids In gay marriage do fine

The CBS News website is not exactly an authoritative source of information on anything, although you at least took the time to refer to some outside information. Also, it seems like the article carefully avoids mentioning the sexual orientation of kids raised by gay couples. Gender identity is mentioned, but it's not always the same thing in news articles.

A good deal of the micro-sized article talks about the differences between heterosexual and homosexual single moms. That's not the whole story.

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm

a christian website is the last place to look for science. they ones bending science are the ones that deep down believe telling fibs to save souls is justified. its what lets them push lies on children in abstinence programs, push lies against evolution etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the exact same news article? Again, it's not as good as the original study as a source, and it also doesn't sound conclusive.

If it is conclusively shown by well-accepted, unbiased studies with large sample populations that children raised by gay parents show no abnormal effects later in life (compared with those raised by normal heterosexual parents), including no extra predisposition to be gay, then I'm okay with gay marriage as a legal institution. Such studies would have to follow the children to adulthood, and would have to have decent data on every type of situation-- not just single moms.

P.S. You'll never catch me going to a Christian website for anything. It's other folks who may do that.

 

[0roo0roo]

i just remember reading about studies showing children of gays are no more likely to be gay. tell me why would a child of dick cheney be gay if ti were the influence of parents. it goes against logic.

anyways, show me proof the poor should be allowed to breed. there seem to be evidence of plenty ill effects of black and hispanic parentage, perhaps they shouldn't have children.

 

[DainBramaged]

Good argument? Yeah...yeah...uh...they are gay and that's....uh....gross.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

Whats your aversion to using another word? Honestly? Who gives a sh*t as long as you get the same legal/financial benefits? Do you not understand that most Christians would back the fvck off if you'd just not insist it be called "marriage"? So why is that not a fair compromise?

I mean, if you're really interested in a compromise, rather than shoving your gayness in the face of people who you know, right or wrong, find it repugnant?

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/4health/sex/lgb_effects.html

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: paulney
Moron

Your maturity is astounding.

I hate people who take things out of context.

GeekDrew is gay. So you're saying you HATE gay people. Well your arguments are clearly biased and worthless.

Your incompetence at logic makes Lewis Carroll spin around in his grave.
Here's a courtesy step you forgot to include to make your statement valid:

1. paulney hates people who take things out of context [T]
2. all gay people take things out of context [F]
3. GeekDrew is gay [T]
4. paulney hate gay people & GeekDrew personally [F]

ZOMG, you just said that all gay people take things out of context! You are such a homophobe one one! :|

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: saymyname
At the end of the day you just have to ask yourself what your experience has been with homosexuals. If you have no experience with homosexuals then frankly you really don't have much to say. Odds are you're just going to spout out some kind of religious rant that you heard in church.

However, not being religious and having lived in San Francisco and by Guerneville up in the wine country I've been exposed to a lot of gay people.

What we're really talking about here is granting people the same rights to adopt and raise children as far as I'm concerned. I could care less about them getting a discount on their car insurance.

Transvestites and Transgenders really have no business raising children. Especially transgender people. They tend to be violent and completely unstable. I wouldn't let my children near them.

Many homosexuals really don't even show it. I'd call them normal people who just swing the other way. There's not much of an argument against them getting married or raising children, but I still think a child would get some weird signals. Somebody is going to have to wear the pants in that relationship and it's gotta be confusing for the child to see it. Children gravitate towards a father figure or a mother away from home when there isn't one in the house, and I don't think a gay couple could substitute for the real thing. So you're just surrendering to the fact that the child is going to have to find another parent elsewhere to fill that void that a gay family can't fill.

Those homosexuals who have to prance around and flaunt it don't impress me. I've seen way too many socially gay people. Call it experimentation, call it bi, call it screwed up in the head or whatever you want. Either way these people are way too odd to be raising children in my opinion. If you are like Gay Al from South Park or Slave, then you shouldn't be raising kids. If you can't decide if you're gay or straight, then maybe you should hold off on kids and I don't think the state should support them until they get their head screwed on straight.

This comes down to whether you put faith in adoption agencies to screen potential adopters.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: paulney
Moron

Your maturity is astounding.

I hate people who take things out of context.

GeekDrew is gay. So you're saying you HATE gay people. Well your arguments are clearly biased and worthless.

Your incompetence at logic makes Lewis Carroll spin around in his grave.
Here's a courtesy step you forgot to include to make your statement valid:

1. paulney hates people who take things out of context [T]
2. all gay people take things out of context [F]
3. GeekDrew is gay [T]
4. paulney hate gay people & GeekDrew personally [F]

ZOMG, you just said that all gay people take things out of context! You are such a homophobe one one! :|

Sarcasm meter broken much?

This thread is now about steak. I like my steak medium rare. How do you like yours?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

Whats your aversion to using another word? Honestly? Who gives a sh*t as long as you get the same legal/financial benefits? Do you not understand that most Christians would back the fvck off if you'd just not insist it be called "marriage"? So why is that not a fair compromise?

I mean, if you're really interested in a compromise, rather than shoving your gayness in the face of people who you know, right or wrong, find it repugnant?

While marriage may have started out an institute of the church, it is now an institute of the state. How this came to be and whether you like it or not are irrelevant. As an institute of the state it should not be discriminatory. Perhaps christians need to come up with another term for it... how's "christian union" sound?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: paulney
Moron

Your maturity is astounding.

I hate people who take things out of context.

GeekDrew is gay. So you're saying you HATE gay people. Well your arguments are clearly biased and worthless.

Your incompetence at logic makes Lewis Carroll spin around in his grave.
Here's a courtesy step you forgot to include to make your statement valid:

1. paulney hates people who take things out of context [T]
2. all gay people take things out of context [F]
3. GeekDrew is gay [T]
4. paulney hate gay people & GeekDrew personally [F]

ZOMG, you just said that all gay people take things out of context! You are such a homophobe one one! :|

Sarcasm meter broken much?

This thread is now about steak. I like my steak medium rare. How do you like yours?

straight


Jk jk, had too

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: kogase
The main distinction to be made between same-sex marriage and bestiality/pedophilia is that the former is a binding agreement between two consenting adults, just as opposite-sex marriage is, while the latter two are not.

An animal can consent to sex. Maybe not all, but there's been cases of humans being on the receiving side of a horse or dog.

I thought we were talking about marrying an animal/child.

 

[CaffeineAndStuff]

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

How about Gmarriage (with a silent G)

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

Whats your aversion to using another word? Honestly? Who gives a sh*t as long as you get the same legal/financial benefits? Do you not understand that most Christians would back the fvck off if you'd just not insist it be called "marriage"? So why is that not a fair compromise?

I mean, if you're really interested in a compromise, rather than shoving your gayness in the face of people who you know, right or wrong, find it repugnant?

While marriage may have started out an institute of the church, it is now an institute of the state. How this came to be and whether you like it or not are irrelevant. As an institute of the state it should not be discriminatory. Perhaps christians need to come up with another term for it... how's "christian union" sound?

I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Cabages
I hope gay marraiges are never allowed. But I also am not senseless. I know it is there constitutional right (at least here in the U.S.) to be able to have the same rights as any other person.

But personally, I find it disgusting and that is disvalues marraige.

:thumbsup:

I think it's great that you're able to see the big picture past your opinions and allow others to have theirs as well. Too few people are willing to do that these days, espousing our freedom and the importance of protecting it, then saying we shouldn't be able to own guns, marry members of the same gender, put chemicals into our bodies, etc., entirely missing the point of true freedom.

The Constitution does not exist to satisfy every possible interpretation of the words "true freedom".

The Constitution seeks to provide every freedom possible to the citizens beyond those freedoms which directly, deliberately, and significantly negatively affect other citizens. Unless you can show a way in which gay marriage falls under the latter description, you cannot justify making anti-gay-marriage language a part of the Constitution. I would go further and say that unless you can do that you are unjustified in saying that gay marriage should be prohibited by any non-Constitutional law as well. It doesn't matter if gay marriage benefits society or not, the only question is whether or not it harms society or other individual citizens.

The Constitution doesn't do anything of the sort; it prescribes some specific rights, but largely leaves things open-ended. In addition, the word "freedom" does not apply in this case, since the things sought by gays are changes to laws that will grant them extra considerations such as tax breaks, not just the freedom from restriction to do some things. Gays are already free to consider themselves married; they've done that for some time, regardless of whether local state law supported it at the time.

Just one of the actual freedoms not granted by the Constitution, which harms no one else by its nature alone, is personal drug use. The Supreme Court is fine with federal and state laws which proscribe this activity, as the laws don't infringe on your Constitutional rights. There is no plan to change this.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Molondo
Don't care what they do. They can call it whatever they want. Just as long they don't use the term "Merriage".

How about gerriage?

What's your aversion to homosexuals using the word "marriage"?

Whats your aversion to using another word? Honestly? Who gives a sh*t as long as you get the same legal/financial benefits? Do you not understand that most Christians would back the fvck off if you'd just not insist it be called "marriage"? So why is that not a fair compromise?

I mean, if you're really interested in a compromise, rather than shoving your gayness in the face of people who you know, right or wrong, find it repugnant?

I personally have no problem with it being another word. I just want to know what the problem with it being the same word is, since it should legally be the same thing as marriage.

Compromise shouldn't be needed, since it's the same thing... but even if it does have to be a different word, fine with me.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Cabages
I hope gay marraiges are never allowed. But I also am not senseless. I know it is there constitutional right (at least here in the U.S.) to be able to have the same rights as any other person.

But personally, I find it disgusting and that is disvalues marraige.

:thumbsup:

I think it's great that you're able to see the big picture past your opinions and allow others to have theirs as well. Too few people are willing to do that these days, espousing our freedom and the importance of protecting it, then saying we shouldn't be able to own guns, marry members of the same gender, put chemicals into our bodies, etc., entirely missing the point of true freedom.

The Constitution does not exist to satisfy every possible interpretation of the words "true freedom".

The Constitution seeks to provide every freedom possible to the citizens beyond those freedoms which directly, deliberately, and significantly negatively affect other citizens. Unless you can show a way in which gay marriage falls under the latter description, you cannot justify making anti-gay-marriage language a part of the Constitution. I would go further and say that unless you can do that you are unjustified in saying that gay marriage should be prohibited by any non-Constitutional law as well. It doesn't matter if gay marriage benefits society or not, the only question is whether or not it harms society or other individual citizens.

The Constitution doesn't do anything of the sort; it prescribes some specific rights, but largely leaves things open-ended. In addition, the word "freedom" does not apply in this case, since the things sought by gays are changes to laws that will grant them extra considerations such as tax breaks, not just the freedom from restriction to do some things.

Just one of the actual freedoms not granted by the Constitution, which harms no one else by its nature alone, is personal drug use. The Supreme Court is fine with federal and state laws which proscribe this activity, as the laws don't infringe on your Constitutional rights. There is no plan to change this.

The Constitution does everything of the sort, and it's because it's so open-ended that we have non-Constitutional law. The Constitution provides a basic framework of freedoms, while federal, state and local laws provide specific laws aimed at granting or curtailing freedoms (so long as they do not contradict the Constitution) basically suited to regional needs and customs. Why do I point this out? I'm refuting the justification for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

However, this is not the point I'm attempting to focus on for the most part in this thread. You have yet to address my other main points.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: paulney
Moron

Your maturity is astounding.

I hate people who take things out of context.

GeekDrew is gay. So you're saying you HATE gay people. Well your arguments are clearly biased and worthless.

Your incompetence at logic makes Lewis Carroll spin around in his grave.
Here's a courtesy step you forgot to include to make your statement valid:

1. paulney hates people who take things out of context [T]
2. all gay people take things out of context [F]
3. GeekDrew is gay [T]
4. paulney hate gay people & GeekDrew personally [F]

ZOMG, you just said that all gay people take things out of context! You are such a homophobe one one! :|

Sarcasm meter broken much?

This thread is now about steak. I like my steak medium rare. How do you like yours?

Also medium rare! We've got a lot in common, you wanna get married?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

QFS

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I'm not talking about the church or the state or the history of marriage you idiot, I'm talking about a compromise which would in effect make gays the winners! I'm talking about a tiny meaningless concession that should mean nothing to anybody, but would allow gays the same legal, financial, property, and inheritance rights! Isn't that whats really important? Its just a fvcking word!

Your attitude makes it clear that what you are really interested in is pissing people off, antagonizing Christians just because they disagree with you, and forcing your personal taste for peckers and leather panties on the rest of the country. If you are unwilling to compromise, then you are even worse than they are. You want those of us in the middle to take your side and help? Then grow the fvck up.

QFS

I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I know...no compromises! Your way or the highway!! Fvck everybody who doesn't agree with you!!!

So how are you any different than the Christians, again? :roll:

The difference is that there is no reason there should be a compromise. What you're promoting is basically a system of "separate but equal".