Typical TBD Guy Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 -Destroys the natural law It's not destroying "natural law." Homosexuality is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom, including all species within the primate order. -Destroys the most major purpose of marriage which is the stability of the PARENTS to raise children Gay couples can't adopt and raise children? They can't do a better job than trailer trash parents? And should we also prevent sterile couples and elderly couples and couples who choose not to have kids from marrying? You need to read about the origins of marriage to find the real reasons for this civil institution. -Forces their beliefs, which are unnatural, on others through coercion Exactly who is coercing whom here?! You're using government to prevent a minority (gays) from having the same rights (tax benefits, property rights, health care access, etc...) as the majority (heteros) based on their individual sexual preferences of which you don't personally approve. Homosexuals aren't using government to prevent YOU from marrying, are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 That is all I am saying too. I have more of a hunch it will strain the system... I think it can only be worse. How can it be better. I can live with either way states decide... I am just against it myself. The elderly disproportionately strain the various welfare state services that you liberals love so much. As do the mentally and physically disabled. As do blacks and Hispanics. As do single moms. In fact, all of these groups would "strain the system" more so than the tiny percentage of gay married couples. Using this half-baked logic, the only subset of the population that should be allowed to marry are white, young, healthy, middle/upper class heterosexual adults....the subset LEAST likely to need government welfare programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 The elderly disproportionately strain the various welfare state services that you liberals love so much. As do the mentally and physically disabled. As do blacks and Hispanics. As do single moms. In fact, all of these groups would "strain the system" more so than the tiny percentage of gay married couples. True... Very true. Why add to it with more? Yet, I thought the gay and lesbian coalition was saying differently (blue above)... They may take umbrage to you calling them a tiny percentage. I thought they say they play an important role... Most are well educated and can secure good jobs while paying into the system. IMO, keep them paying into the system as they have been. Again... I have no problem with letting gays be gays... Acting ANY way they want do. Just don't recognize it as society recognizes the traditional view of marriage. Let them kick more in by securing benefits independently. Most gays are productive and well educated with above average ability to secure jobs... Let them shoulder the burden for choosing an alternative lifestyle. The last thing we need to do is take on more people that burden the system... Especially a "fringe group." I am not saying they can't live the way the want to... Just don't recognize the union in a traditional sense. All I am saying is that there needs to be standards and limits on what is socially accepted to gain an advantage to securing benefits. So what, they pay more. There are many cases in country and the the way it is run about giving "most favored" preferences to one group over another... I think that this is just one area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 True... Very true. Why add to it with more? Yet, I thought the gay and lesbian coalition was saying differently (blue above)... They may take umbrage to you calling them a tiny percentage. I thought they say they play an important role... Most are well educated and can secure good jobs while paying into the system. IMO, keep them paying into the system as they have been. Again... I have no problem with letting gays be gays... Acting ANY way they want do. Just don't recognize it as society recognizes the traditional view of marriage. Let them kick more in by securing benefits independently. Most gays are productive and well educated with above average ability to secure jobs... Let them shoulder the burden for choosing an alternative lifestyle. The last thing we need to do is take on more people that burden the system... Especially a "fringe group." I am not saying they can't live the way the want to... Just don't recognize the union in a traditional sense. All I am saying is that there needs to be standards and limits on what is socially accepted to gain an advantage to securing benefits. So what, they pay more. There are many cases in country and the the way it is run about giving "most favored" preferences to one group over another... I think that this is just one area. "People with Red hair should not be allowed to extend their health insurance to their spouses. This would help to unburden the system." "Left-handed people should not be allowed to extend their health insurance to their spouses. They are sinister, and this would help to unburden the system." How is what you're saying any different, practically speaking, than the two above? Since when did "because it's the right thing to do" become a problem for you? When two dudes like to kiss each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 The destruction of marriage and family values are clearly seen in society. I mean why not push absolute anarchy while we are at it under the pretense of liberty. With the eradication of reason found in the majority of people there is no grounds to have any laws or groundwork under subjectivist thinking. Family values and Divorce .... According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America: The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41% The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60% The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73% How does same gender relationships fit into this category when you hear that divorces destroy family values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 "People with Red hair should not be allowed to extend their health insurance to their spouses. This would help to unburden the system." "Left-handed people should not be allowed to extend their health insurance to their spouses. They are sinister, and this would help to unburden the system." How is what you're saying any different, practically speaking, than the two above? Since when did "because it's the right thing to do" become a problem for you? When two dudes like to kiss each other? It is not the same as the two frivilous examples you pointed out above... To me marriage isn't frivilous. That is with respect to hetero marriage. The two examples that you pointed out are the same as with homo marriage though. You do see the difference? That is where the disconnect exists within your example. IMO, homo marriage revolves around pleasure (posssibly un-natural procreation with the advent of technology and social systems). That being said, the "necessity" element does exist in both types of marriages whereas a same sex couple may be seeking dependent benefits. Now again, I don't have a problem with what people do for pleasure... More power to them... I do have a problem with the what standards should define marriage and (laugh as you will) the sanctity of it. I think the meaning of marriage should revolve around the traditional standards. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of selfish pleasure in many hetero marriages, but it is not the underlying standard to the definition of the word marriage. Just as there is plenty of love in a same sex relationship. To me the "marriage test" is only met one way, that is: in hetero relationships. I think that is what many people like myself have a problem with when others try and define it differently... It has nothing to do with me or what other people are doing... It is about defining a word and setting standards and limits about that definition. I agree, my beliefs are every bit exclusionary and limiting to some. I am sorry that my beliefs may cause pain and rejection among some people. And it is not about "two dudes like to kiss each other", it is about two dudes being recognized under (laugh as you may) the sanctity of what the bulk of society defines marriage to be. If that is the case, why would society go against the these traditonal standards layed out by the people for a non-traditonal standard that is not readily accepted. Again, I could care less who kisses who where. Question: Do you think we should have social standards... Or should it just be a free-for-all? I do understand the other side of what I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Family values and Divorce .... According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America: The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41% The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60% The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73% How does same gender relationships fit into this category when you hear that divorces destroy family values? You are absolutely right. Who/when first started devaluing the standard for what constitutes divorce? It (blue above) is a continuation of devaluing standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Anybody who thinks that gay civil marriage is a threat to their own marriage doesn't have a very good marriage in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Anybody who thinks that gay civil marriage is a threat to their own marriage doesn't have a very good marriage in the first place. Anyone who thinks that folks celebrating their religion is a threat to their own views of religion arent very secure in their views in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Anybody who thinks that gay civil marriage is a threat to their own marriage doesn't have a very good marriage in the first place. I never said it was a threat to my marriage... Keep missing the point PJ. I do believe it is a threat and a trend at devaluing social standards and limits. And you made a good distinction by saying gay CIVIL marriage. I prefer not to it happens, I just don't see the point it if there is no spiritual element. I just don't think the arrangement should be recognized legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Anybody who thinks that gay civil marriage is a threat to their own marriage doesn't have a very good marriage in the first place. Agreed 100% Anyone who thinks that folks celebrating their religion is a threat to their own views of religion arent very secure in their views in the first place. Agreed 100% Don't preach religion or flaunt homosexuality to me, and I'll be happy and content not to tell you where to go. Like the saying goes. No harm, no foul. As for a civil marriage... Why should people have to bend over backwards to meet a specific religion? Why do Christians DEMAND you convert to Catholosism when you are already a practicing Christian? or vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 It is not the same as the two frivilous examples you pointed out above... To me marriage isn't frivilous. That is with respect to hetero marriage. The two examples that you pointed out are the same as with homo marriage though. You do see the difference? That is where the disconnect exists within your example. IMO, homo marriage revolves around pleasure So men and women marry for love, but gays marry or want to get married for sex and benefits. Got it. You're a bright one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Anyone who thinks that folks celebrating their religion is a threat to their own views of religion arent very secure in their views in the first place. Celebrating religion is perfectly fine. Just don't let what you believe that your invisible man said dictate how others (who don't believe in your invisible man) live their lives. If you want to celebrate your invisible man, be my guest, but let others celebrate theirs in whatever way they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 So men and women marry for love, but gays marry or want to get married for sex and benefits. They just need to get some Levitre and Wood into their diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 So men and women marry for love, but gays marry or want to get married for sex and benefits. Got it. You're a bright one. No. Many men and woman marry for antyhing BUT LOVE... And going back in history it is even worse. Love is more of a newer idea. Isn't there more of a social necessity (natural procreation) with hetero relationships? Or at least the illusion? Why do the gays want to be recognized?... Even for men and woman, the institution of marriage is nowhere as nessecary as it was int he past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 -Destroys the natural law I'm going to assume that you mean the "natural law" that sexual acts should be designated for the purpose of procreation? Ever have anal sex with your wife? Ever get a blowjob? Ever use a condom so that your partner wouldn't get pregnant? If so, then you did so for pleasure and not procreation. How is that any different from two guys having anal sex or blowing each other? And by the way, just a few decades ago it was acceptable to say that an interracial marriage was against the natural law. Social progress, dude...you can't stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Why do the gays want to be recognized?... Probably has something to do with their selfish desire for equality. Remember when public colleges used to be for men only? How about when they finally started to admit women, the government said "OK, we'll allow you to be students, but you won't be called students...you'll be called visitors. You'll take the same classes and pay the same tuition, but you will not be referred to as students." And then people would come to defense of the colleges and say "Well, traditionally, only men have been educated...been that way forever. If these 'women' want to get an education, fine, but a student is a man." So you could say "What's the big deal? Why do they care what they are called? They are getting the same benefits as students, they just can't have the title." And I'd say, it's not your decision to make. And if you don't think it would be demeaning to a daughter or sister of yours, then I don't know what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I'm going to assume that you mean the "natural law" that sexual acts should be designated for the purpose of procreation? Ever have anal sex with your wife? Ever get a blowjob? Ever use a condom so that your partner wouldn't get pregnant? If so, then you did so for pleasure and not procreation. How is that any different from two guys having anal sex or blowing each other? And by the way, just a few decades ago it was acceptable to say that an interracial marriage was against the natural law. Social progress, dude...you can't stop it. I am not talking about the "acts." I am talking about the recognition of being "married." "Marriage" is a human construct and IMO if most people believe that it should be recognized between a man and woman, so be it... No equal protection for gays as being married. Now if that changes (the views of the public), so be it also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 You guys remember when everyone got all worked up when the first Drive-thru-Wedding Chapel opened? Talk about defiling sacredness! Before this outrage all the people concerned with the fragility of marriage were devoted to banning divorce! Just who are these uppity suits unsealing God's blessing to man and woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I am not talking about the "acts." I am talking about the recognition of being "married." "Marriage" is a human construct and IMO if most people believe that it should be recognized between a man and woman, so be it... No equal protection for gays as being married. Now if that changes (the views of the public), so be it also. No equal protection, huh? While we're at it, why don't we limit marriage to white property owning males? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts