NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[drivingdaisy]

How does my resistance to gay marriage affect you personally?
does your whole post here basically request that your thoughts on the matter should be the respected thoughts?

Maybe some people just naturally find the thought of two guys kissing over dinner in public revolting, on the same level as watching someone eat buggers while seated at the restaurant. Are you suggesting that these people just get over it?

If one can be born attracted to the gay lifestyle, Im pretty sure its not that far of a stretch to say one can be born equally unattracted to it.

Funny I don't addressing my statement to you. I WAS commenting on the article from the OP. And I didn't say you couldn't find it revolting did I? I am tired of these articles trying to convince others that they should or decide someone's path in life for them. And you'll notice that my second topic is the legality of gay marriage. And while you might not want to watch someone eat their buggers, its not illegal is it.

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



I've addressed your question on the matter repeatedly. Your accusations seem to br a last ditch effort to make yourself out to be some kind of victim in this discussion and you should be a bit embarrassed that you've stooped to this level. My equating inter racial marriage equality to gay marriage equality does not brand me a racist no matter how hard you try. Sorry. :shrug:

I'm not the one that referred to a race of people by using the N word..

If you think its acceptable to do so, just admit it.

and there is nothing to equate to a male/female marriage and two men or two women playing house. Just is not the same thing, and if you didnt put such a personal value on skin color, you would realize this.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I've addressed your question on the matter repeatedly. Your accusations seem to br a last ditch effort to make yourself out to be some kind of victim in this discussion and you should be a bit embarrassed that you've stooped to this level. My equating inter racial marriage equality to gay marriage equality does not brand me a racist no matter how hard you try. Sorry. :shrug:

I'm not the one that referred to a race of people by using the N word..

If you think its acceptable to do so, just admit it.

and there is nothing to equate to a male/female marriage and two men or two women playing house. Just is not the same thing, and if you didnt put such a personal value on skin color, you would realize this.

If you would actually READ my post rather than jumping to weak, emotional conclusions you would have seen:

(I obviously don't agree with my second point...I reeeaaally don't like using that word...I used a crude word to make a point...you probably missed it...)

Don't you understand that the word you used is ALSO offensive to the group being addressed?

Maybe you should take your little blinders off and look around, maybe brush up on your reading comprehension and get a clue. Then maybe (though you may still disagree) you would understand where people are coming from WRT this issue. I know this is a very difficult request what with the extreme conservative social values your hiding behind; but you never know, maybe you'll learn something!

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



Maybe you should take your little blinders off and look around, maybe brush up on your reading comprehension and get a clue. Then maybe (though you may still disagree) you would understand where people are coming from WRT this issue. I know this is a very difficult request what with the extreme conservative social values your hiding behind; but you never know, maybe you'll learn something!

Maybe you should stop looking at it through the eyes of someone trying to get special rights for a family member and instead look at it through the eyes of someone that understands biology.
Maybe you will learn something. and in the process, maybe you will understand that race is not a reason to discriminate.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Maybe you should take your little blinders off and look around, maybe brush up on your reading comprehension and get a clue. Then maybe (though you may still disagree) you would understand where people are coming from WRT this issue. I know this is a very difficult request what with the extreme conservative social values your hiding behind; but you never know, maybe you'll learn something!

Maybe you should stop looking at it through the eyes of someone trying to get special rights for a family member and instead look at it through the eyes of someone that understands biology.
Maybe you will learn something. and in the process, maybe you will understand that race is not a reason to discriminate.

Special rights? Then what's your justification for having these 'special rights'?

I understand biology, I don't understand why it bothers you so much? Who cares? Biology has nothing to do with love and marriage.

Right, race isn't a reason to discriminate; why is sexuality then?

 

[This_person]

The point is that it is NOT equality like some claim it is. Why shouldn't committed gay couples have the same recognition?

That's easy, and repeatedly answered - for the same reason Target and Good Will don't have the same recognition: they're not the same. Similar is not the same as the same. It's really that easy, and I don't understand why you don't understand that.

Someone in here said once (may have been you, IDK and IDC) that if there isn't a good reason to change/make a law then we shouldn't...well what is the good reason for DOMA?

It was a good intentioned, but invalid (in my opinion) way to circumvent state laws.

I've listed what many people consider 'good reason' for states to redefine the state recognized unions between married heterosexuals, I've spent many-a-thread defending equality...so why SHOULDN'T they be legally recognized as equal?

You've provided mushy, emotional, opinionated reasons. I'm looking for hard-fact statistical and unbiased reasons to treat two similar things exactly the same.

Right there...simple...parties have to be of the age of legal consent. Period. It's - quite honestly - not my problem if upon legally recognizing gay marriage other groups start yelling. Just because you may thing gay marriage is icky doesn't mean all 'icky' forms of marriage will then ensue...

It's got nothing to do with "icky". It's got to do with treating things fairly. Every argument you use for same-sex relationships getting treated exactly the same as traditional marriage could be given for group relationships and incest. There's not a single argument you provide for your position that couldn't be provided for those.

There's also not a single argument against same-sex relationships being treated as marriage that isn't equally proper against those other relationships - at least the arguments I've made.

 

[This_person]

So when a gay couple gets into a car accident and one has is dying...the other wants to visit him...someone has to make a decision to pull a plug...you're fine with telling them they 'should have been prepared, you can't visit your dying partner because you forgot a form' or 'should have been prepared, no one is here to make a life or death decision so your loved one is going to suffer alone because you forgot a form'?

wow...

What would the difference be between that and two unmarried people of opposite sex?

Seriously?

 

[This_person]

This particular story always got my attention.

So I pose the same question to you - how is that different than Sarandon and Robbins, or Simmons and Tweed?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Funny, I've never had to prove anything to visit my husband and neither has my mother...and living will ARE contested all the time, google it...I neither have the time nor energy to explain it to you as I'm sure it would take a minimum of 2 pages.

Are living wills contested disproportionately against homosexuals? If so, you might have an argument against that discrimination.

 

[This_person]

I'm always amazed about how people get so upset over something that doesn't really affect them. If you don't believe in homosexual marriage, fine. Don't participate and teach your children what you believe, but stop trying to convince everyone that your belief is correct.

I say the same to you - don't use the law to try and convince anyone your belief is correct. If you're not in a homosexual relationship, don't get involved in this discussion.

Or, maybe that's a stupid point to make in a free society.

I think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married legally. It seems silly that the US would even have a law/prevent people who are in love or want to get married from doing so. I mean really how is a government supposed to decide what is love or define someone's idea of a partnership.

They still don't do that. No one stops homosexuals from loving one another, doesn't define love or partnership, etc. All most states do is define what it takes to get the conviniences of marriage, just like there are definitions of what it takes to drive a car, be a non-profit organization, take certain drugs.....

On the other hand, I believe it is each religion's right to allow or not allow is since they have a set of beliefs that make their particular religion what it is.

And as for children are better off with a mom and a dad argument... well maybe that's true but I think that lots of people turn out more than ok who have only had 1 parent, no parents, or 2 moms or 2 dads. A loving home is a loving home.

All this is true. Appropriate to this conversation in absolutely no way, but true.

 

[drivingdaisy]

I say the same to you - don't use the law to try and convince anyone your belief is correct. If you're not in a homosexual relationship, don't get involved in this discussion.

Or, maybe that's a stupid point to make in a free society.They still don't do that. No one stops homosexuals from loving one another, doesn't define love or partnership, etc. All most states do is define what it takes to get the conviniences of marriage, just like there are definitions of what it takes to drive a car, be a non-profit organization, take certain drugs.....All this is true. Appropriate to this conversation in absolutely no way, but true.

To what conversation are you speaking of? The OP links an article which among other items discusses how such relationships would cause children to suffer. I also didn't realize people could not speak of items that are related to the topic and other postings with your approval of its "appropriateness". I also believe it is my right to have the opionion that the govenment shouldn't be able to put limits/restrictions on same sex marriages. You will notice that I don't say others can't have their own ideas or opinions, I only share mine and pehaps some of my reasoning.

 

[UNA]

That's easy, and repeatedly answered - for the same reason Target and Good Will don't have the same recognition: they're not the same. Similar is not the same as the same. It's really that easy, and I don't understand why you don't understand that.

The only difference is that they can't have kids (they can adopt) but they cannot have their OWN children...is that reason enough to deny them equal recognition?

It was a good intentioned, but invalid (in my opinion) way to circumvent state laws.

Good intentioned?? I can probably name a dozen laws that were'good intentioned' but toally un-constitutional and/or just out-right wrong...the road to hell is pave with 'em

You've provided mushy, emotional, opinionated reasons. I'm looking for hard-fact statistical and unbiased reasons to treat two similar things exactly the same.

There are PLENTY of similar things that are treated the same way. And thank you so much for the "mushy, emotional, opinionated" condescension...

It's got nothing to do with "icky". It's got to do with treating things fairly. Every argument you use for same-sex relationships getting treated exactly the same as traditional marriage could be given for group relationships and incest. There's not a single argument you provide for your position that couldn't be provided for those.

There's also not a single argument against same-sex relationships being treated as marriage that isn't equally proper against those other relationships - at least the arguments I've made.

So?

 

[UNA]

What would the difference be between that and two unmarried people of opposite sex?

Seriously?

...ummm...they're not married...

 

[UNA]

Are living wills contested disproportionately against homosexuals? If so, you might have an argument against that discrimination.

Doesn't it ever occur to you that the minutia with which you have to argue against gay marriage is a sign that it might just be wrong to deny it? Just sayin' :shrug:

 

[bcp]

Good intentioned?? I can probably name a dozen laws that were'good intentioned' but toally un-constitutional and/or just out-right wrong...the road to hell is pave with 'em

If you don't believe in God, then how can you think that there is actually a road being paved to a location that would be equally hard for you to comprehend/believe in?

Just asking.

 

[bcp]

Doesn't it ever occur to you that the minutia with which you have to argue against gay marriage is a sign that it might just be wrong to deny it? Just sayin' :shrug:

And yet, other than the response, "they want to" you have come up with nothing to support your side of the argument.

We could always bring biology and the reason for different parts on men and women, or the fact that the butt-hole is actually designed as a one way street.
There are many things that can be pointed out to support a no gay marriage opinion, not so much the case for it..
They want to. that's the best you have?

 

[UNA]

If you don't believe in God, then how can you think that there is actually a road being paved to a location that would be equally hard for you to comprehend/believe in?

Just asking.

It's what is commonly known as a proverb or aphorism. A proverb is "a short pithy saying in general use, stating a general truth or piece of advice" (Google dictionary) and an aphorism is "a pithy observation that contains a general truth. They're similar terms...I know...very confusing...

 

[UNA]

And yet, other than the response, "they want to" you have come up with nothing to support your side of the argument.

We could always bring biology and the reason for different parts on men and women, or the fact that the butt-hole is actually designed as a one way street.
There are many things that can be pointed out to support a no gay marriage opinion, not so much the case for it..
They want to. that's the best you have?

Haven't you been paying attention at all?

So is your issue that two man/two women cannot have a child together?

 

[McGinn77]

And yet, other than the response, "they want to" you have come up with nothing to support your side of the argument.

We could always bring biology and the reason for different parts on men and women, or the fact that the butt-hole is actually designed as a one way street.
There are many things that can be pointed out to support a no gay marriage opinion, not so much the case for it..

If you're denying equal rights, the equal right being, the right to marry any consenting adult you wish the burden is on the side trying to exclude the right not those trying to allow it. Try a Democratic not Communist argument next time. Or hey, try China you seem like you'd fit in.

They want to. that's the best you have?

It's America, it's the only argument needed. Your line of thinking is the same thing that lead to prohibition. "Oh, you wanna drink? What's the benefit to society?" "Because I like to drink." "Sorry, that's not good enough" I seem to remember learning something about how that worked out.

 

[bcp]

Haven't you been paying attention at all?

So is your issue that two man/two women cannot have a child together?

No, because not all male/female marriages end up physically or mentally able to have children.
I never said that, you are trying to force that comment to fit into the talking points. Let me help with how the conversation would go in your perfect liberal world

Me: Yes, marriage is for procreation, Gays cant do it so there is no compelling need to have them marry.
You: how about couples that cant have children, should they also be denied?
Me: no
You: But if they cant produce then they should not be allowed to get married,,

See how it unfolds?
But the reality is that the human body parts are not biologically designed to work in the way that gay guys work them. there is nothing natural about the whole thing.
It is a perversion that to this day has not been proven to be anything but a choice.

You: When did you make your choice to be straight?
Me: Straight is normal, what I didn't do was make a choice to experiment with other guys then claim I'm gay.

So basically, please stop trying to steer the conversation to a place that you know it has no basis in going to and argue with real fact. or even opinion, Your opinion.