Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I do have my opinion on it and gay marriage should not be accepted within the norm of defining what marriage is. It is not irrational. Irrational is trying to force a norm on people. There is nothing normal about gay marriage right now. Like I said... Life can't be a free-for-all. There are limits on on everyting in life and a lot of people believe in these limits. Why does this even bother people... The want the state and government to define what a marriage is. That is not the role of gov't. That is the role for the majority of people in society to define that. Yes, but you are making that your opinion because it is the majority opinion of society, not because you feel it is empirically justified... no? It bothers people because its !@#$ed up to live in a society where consenting, rational adults can't get married because it freaks people out, because God says so, or, in your opinion, because everyone thinks so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Venomous Dykster, I like it! That sounds about right Gaydom? umm, sure, I get what you mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Yes, but you are defining making that your opinion because it is the majority opinion of society, not because you feel it is empirically justified... no? It bothers people because its !@#$ed up to live in a society where consenting, rational adults can't get married because it freaks people out, because God says so, or, in your opinion, because everyone thinks so. No. My main opinion is that it shouldn't be accepted. Gay marriage is not normal. Doubly no the societal norm, just like incest and plural marriage. (Bold) I am not gonna really get into all the other BS excuses about it... That just goes to legitmatize gay marriage and make it seem normal. It is not normal and a line has to be drawn somewhere and this it where it should be drawn. Thankfully most people feel the same way. It doesn't freak me out... People can do what they want. They may not get acceptance, but they can do what they want. Again... What is stopping siblings from marrying to obtain health benefits? Guys like JA think that is whacked. Yet, that doesn't seem so whacked when gays are given the recognition of marriage. Society has to dictate some limits and rules and this is the dividing line, why put that line somewhere else? Get over it, the line is at gay marriage and that is the least arbitrary place it can be (that social line/rule). Get over it, that is where the norm line is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Why can't 3 or more enter into marriage? What makes marriage just between 2 people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I said I would rethink my position. That is, one would have to see where society is at that point. Call it what you want, herd mentality or what not... So be it. Mores are very important in society. No. My main opinion is that it shouldn't be accepted. Gay marriage is not normal. Doubly no the societal norm, just like incest and plural marriage. (Bold) I am not gonna really get into all the other BS excuses about it... That just goes to legitmatize gay marriage and make it seem normal. It is not normal and a line has to be drawn somewhere and this it where it should be drawn. Thankfully most people feel the same way. It doesn't freak me out... People can do what they want. They may not get acceptance, but they can do what they want. Again... What is stopping siblings from marrying to obtain health benefits? Guys like JA think that is whacked. Yet, that doesn't seem so whacked when gays are given the recognition of marriage. Society has to dictate some limits and rules and this is the dividing line, why put that line somewhere else? Get over it, the line is at gay marriage and that is the least arbitrary place it can be (that social line/rule). Get over it, that is where the norm line is. But in the bolded portion above, you seem to have admitted that you have adopted an anti-gay marriage stance because that is the majority opinion. Thus, you don't believe it is wrong because you personally have deduced that, but rather because society dictates the appropriate "norms" of the day, whatever that means. In essence, you have formed this opinion because others have formed it. That is what I am struggling with. Frankly, you seem to be implying that homosexual marriage makes you uncomfortable... is that it? You're giving conflicting responses. See the italicized portions. These express conflicting ideas. I'm not going to "get over it", because the "arbitrary line" can easily go both ways. The more you allow the government and the herd to dictate what is normal and right, the more your freedoms deteriorate, just as a general rule. It is wrong to prevent rational, consenting adults to legally enter into marriages, period. I'm not just going to "get over it," just like I wouldn't get over it if I couldn't marry someone from a lower class or different religion. It's the government yet again interfering in people's business when it's unwarranted, and I won't just "get over it." If they get married to get health benefits, BFD! There are plenty of sham hetero marriages, it happens! Have better screening processes then, if that's your hangup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Why can't 3 or more enter into marriage? What makes marriage just between 2 people? Because then you are abusing the system for the benefits. If we are going to afford government tax breaks and benefits to married people, it should be made that you cannot join multiple parties for tax purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Why can't 3 or more enter into marriage? What makes marriage just between 2 people? I am still waiting for him to answer my question about why we have to wear clothing. Don't make it harder yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Because then you are abusing the system for the benefits. If we are going to afford government tax breaks and benefits to married people, it should be made that you cannot join multiple parties for tax purposes. Being gay is not the norm. They are abusing the system. They should pay for benefits individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I am still waiting for him to answer my question about why we have to wear clothing. Don't make it harder yet. I am still waiting too. They won't answer it. Everything is gonna seem arbitrary. I believe drawing the line here (gay marriage) is the least arbitrary way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Being gay is not the norm. They are abusing the system. They should pay for benefits individually. Then every 2 person, consenting, adult marriage is an abuse of the system. It has nothing to do with whatever nonsensical "norm" you are articulating. Can you really not see the difference where allowing plural marriages to obtain tax benefits, from a budgetary, and not freedom-encroaching, perspective should not be permitted? Or hell, let them get legally married, but only 2 persons in the marriage can qualify for the benefits, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the "norm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I am still waiting for him to answer my question about why we have to wear clothing. Don't make it harder yet. You didn't address that question to me, but frankly I don't give a !@#$ if the all of Ralph Wilson Stadium wants to show up to the Pats game naked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Then every 2 person, consenting, adult marriage is an abuse of the system. It has nothing to do with whatever nonsensical "norm" you are articulating. Can you really not see the difference where allowing plural marriages to obtain tax benefits, from a budgetary, and not freedom-encroaching, perspective should not be permitted? Or hell, let them get legally married, but only 2 persons in the marriage can qualify for the benefits, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the "norm." Ya... If you want to go there fine. It is stil the accepted baseline for marriage. There has to be this baseline. Please answer Jim's question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I am still waiting too. They won't answer it. Everything is gonna seem arbitrary. I believe drawing the line here (gay marriage) is the least arbitrary way of doing things. Don't act like I haven't addressed every response you've made to my posts, I'm not avoiding any questions. There's nothing arbitrary about the line I'm drawing: frankly, if anyone's line is arbitrary, it's yours, because it shifts with the changing of the winds, as far as you've articulated. How's this for drawing the line: preventing consenting, mentally capable adults from being legally married is a form of government invasion on personal choice, which is wrong. There's your !@#$ing line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Ya... If you want to go there fine. It is stil the accepted baseline for marriage. There has to be this baseline. Please answer Jim's question. Jim didn't address that question to me! WTF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Because then you are abusing the system for the benefits. If we are going to afford government tax breaks and benefits to married people, it should be made that you cannot join multiple parties for tax purposes. Who said anything about tax's? What if 3 people love each other and merely wish legal recognition of a union for say, visiting rights if one's in a ICU? I agree with EII. At some point a line must be drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Who said anything about tax's? What if 3 people love each other and merely wish legal recognition of a union for say, visiting rights if one's in a ICU?I agree with EII. At some point a line must be drawn. Because tax benefits are an inescapable part of the equation as things stand. If they want to eliminate tax benefits for married couples, go ahead and marry the whole town. However, as long as tax benefits are part of the deal, it must be limited to 2 people. Like I said, they can legally get married for all I care, but only 2 people in the marriage may receive the benefits. Establishing visitation or custody rights from there is fine by me. And Jim, at least you've admitted you don't want gay marriage because it grosses you out. As wrong as that is, it's not as messed up as EII's "I believe what society believes" reasoning. At least you have deduced your own reasons, regardless of what others say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Because tax benefits are an inescapable part of the equation as things stand. If they want to eliminate tax benefits for married couples, go ahead and marry the whole town. However, as long as tax benefits are part of the deal, it must be limited to 2 people. Like I said, they can legally get married for all I care, but only 2 people in the marriage may receive the benefits. Establishing visitation or custody rights from there is fine by me. And Jim, at least you've admitted you don't want gay marriage because it grosses you out. As wrong as that is, it's not as messed up as EII's "I believe what society believes" reasoning. At least you have deduced your own reasons, regardless of what others say. Yes I did say that, and stand by it. But I did NOT say I was against gay marriage for that reason. Marriage is a tradition thousands of years old for a reason-it was created to give men and woman a special status for raising their children together. [And please don't bring up the infertile couple argument]. Gay marriage by it's very nature is sterile and not aimed at producing the next generation. It is a corruption of a very Noble word it was never intended for. Again as I said-from a LLC or something-don't call it a marrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 So when do we get to walk around buck naked? Do we even need government laws against nudity?! For one thing, 99.9% of sane people will continue to wear proper clothing anyway due to body shame, weather conditions, wanting to be taken seriously at their places of employment, etc... But do you now want to start banning short skirts, low-cut blouses, speedos, etc. that already leave little to the imagination? And shouldn't we - a society ostensibly run by adults - start to move beyond giggling and blushing about the human form? Enough with this digression. I still want an explicit explanation for why allowing gays to marry is going to ruin my own heterosexual marriage....<crickets chirping>... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Do we even need government laws against nudity?! For one thing, 99.9% of sane people will continue to wear proper clothing anyway due to body shame, weather conditions, wanting to be taken seriously at their places of employment, etc... But do you now want to start banning short skirts, low-cut blouses, speedos, etc. that already leave little to the imagination? And shouldn't we - a society ostensibly run by adults - start to move beyond giggling and blushing about the human form? Enough with this digression. I still want an explicit explanation for why allowing gays to marry is going to ruin my own heterosexual marriage....<crickets chirping>... So you would have no problem with nudists at your children's playground? After all, they are not interfering with your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. I never claimed gay marriage would cheapen anybody's individual heterosexual marriage. I do claim it would cheapen the institution of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 So when do we get to walk around buck naked? If I were you, I'd wait until it was warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts