| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
I think you're missing the real problem. You mean to tell me that government intrusion into virtually every aspect of our lives isn't the problem? The gay marriage thing is just a single symptom of the problem. 20+ million illegals on my dime? That's part of the same problem. Why does the government want them on my dime? It gives government control over them. Honestly, how free are you when the government has the say over who you can and cannot marry? What about the polygamists? Isn't that next? Who is the government to decide this for us? It's absurd. Yes, get them out of the marriage business and everything else that isn't specifically allowed in the Constitution. What a radical idea! Who really thinks that gays would care about marriage if not for benefits that the government controls? I'm curious. What is the history of gay marriage? Anyone have any info on that? It doesn't even have to be Fox News as the source. | ||
| Sifo |
Stop with the marriage tax break already. There is a marriage tax penalty if both people work. Actually the example I gave was SS survivor benefits. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I bet you wouldn't hear any more complaints about Gay marriage ever again if a Civil Union Law was accepted and passed. | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh, you'd hear bitching, but the legal problems for the gay couple would be solved. Good enough for me. Some folk just won't be happy until they get their way on this, for reasons mentioned here, and others not. There are multiple political things going on here. The gay marriage thing is being promoted by some as a distraction from what's important. It's being used to attack all conservative types because the social conservatives and religious right is against it, so they ( the D party & progressives ) can point to some and claim all agree. It's a great way to say "those other guys are heartless" and get general majority agreement, at least among that one sides vote base. The only argument I've heard here that's not variably religious based, is the complaint of insurance and "entitlement" benefits going to an additional set of "couples" ( because a civil union WILL get used by het couples ) that costs you more/gets you less. That's valid, but I think overblown. I bet that is lost in the noise as the insurance and entitlement structure groans under a lack of funds in an increasingly socialist and corrupt economy. Plus, I'm still rooting for the inevitable polygamy follow up. I wonder how that will play in Utah? | ||
| Sifo |
Polygamy. It's natural. You have to allow it!  | ||
| Blake |
>>> 90% of felons in American prisons are Christian. See how that works? No. See Joe, 90% of the general population say they are Christian too. So the proportion is the same. The statistical evidence becomes significant when you have a group that comprises say 30% of the population at large but 70% of felons. That is what we call a disproportionality. It indicates that said group is disproportionally prone to becoming felons compared the general population. See how that works? Don, Did you read what I wrote? No answer for the question I keep asking? My points are nothing but reasonable and logical. There is no emotional content or hatred involved. I really resent that you'd make such an assertion. If you cannot disagree and discuss the issue with reason, then it's best to avoid the discussion. You were wrong on the tax issue, you're wrong about the hate issue, and you've been misled on the whole issue. Care to answer my question? Anyone? Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its standing for most successfully raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Why not? Anyone? | ||
| M1combat |
I did answer you Blake. | ||
| Blake |
I just really despise the argument that any objection to any measure that might make someone happy must be out of hate. Some here apparently are unaware that many states already grant the same right to homosexual unions as they do to marriages, California being among them. The push is not for rights, it is to force the federal goat to mandate a wholesale redefinition of marriage, which then in turn forces everyone to recognize the same. Don, are you saying that an employer ought to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for homosexual partners of his employees? Are you in favor of providing social security death benefits to homosexual partners? Why? What compelling reason is there for all hard working Americans to hand over our hard earned money to support such a surviving partner of a homosexual union. Checked the average lifespan of homosexual men lately? Should homosexual partners not have to pay tax on inheritance from their deceased partners? Why not? What compelling reason is there to not tax such an inheritance? One plaintiff involved in Suprem Court case is actually suing because she had to pay inheritance tax on the estate that her homosexual partner left her. Why did our govt bestow all the above special privileges upon marriage? ... social security death benefits, no inheritance tax... The answer is simple. We saw the incredible very real and undeniable benefit of supporting strong family values and the committed union of man and woman. That is the only reason we offer such privileges to marriage. It's not cause we're soft-hearted or kind or compassionate. Though we may indeed be so, that is NOT the role of our federal govt. and it's not why we have enacted such policy in support and solemn recognition of marriage. It is because it promotes the general prosperity and success of the entire nation. Those same compelling reasons do not exist for homosexual partnerships. Unless you can show how it does, you have no case but a weak emotional one. Our law ought not be based on emotion. Homosexual union is NOT equal to marriage in any meaningful serious way when it comes to the support of the federal govt. I'll say it again... I'll stand with all the homosexuals to fight for their freedom to live as they desire and do as they like with fellow consenting adults. I simply reject a govt mandated redefinition of marriage and all the governmental heavy-handedness that it absolutely would bring with it. A man and his sister want to marry. Okay by you? Why not? They love each other and just want to be happy. Why deny them that right? A mother and her son? Okay by you? Why not? Have you seen the stats on HIV/AIDS infection rates among homosexual men in America? They're just 8,000% more likely to contract HIV/AIDS compared the the population in general. That's if they are in a "committed" relationship or not. The question really boils down to whether or not "marriage" is any committed partnership between any people, or does the word have a specific meaning, specifically referring to the very unique and vital union of man and woman? | ||
| Blake |
Don, I don't see your answer. I see you ascribing hatred as the motive of those who disagree with you. Your understanding of what is at stake seems naive. Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its inherent characteristic of being optimum for raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Just a simple answer? | ||
| Blake |
I'd like to be recognized as an African American. That would make me happy. I demand that the definition of "African American" from now on be made to include anyone who would like to be known as African American. If there are any govt benefits, I demand them too. Make that "African American woman disabled veteran", yeah that would make me happy. Why hurt my feelings by not redefining all those terms so that they include me too? Words have meaning you say? I agree! Then homosexual partners ought to live their lives as they like without telling us that we need to redefine the meaning of "marriage." It has a specific meaning for a specific scenario. Why is that a problem??? | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Blomos have a tendency to be DINKs so they will be penalized like the rest of us schlubs." Blomos? DINKs? What do you mean by these two terms? | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
People love their freedoms - be it guns or whatever - on here. Yet when someone else wants freedom they put them down so quickly. Anyone, please - how does it affect you if two men or two women choose to marry one another? | ||
| Aesquire |
DINK = double income, no kids. A slightly derogatory term for couples with no interest in procreation and both working. Many consider the deliberate DINKs ( as opposed to those who have not yet had children for the usual statistical reasons..... If I have to explain how that works I can, but basic? It's random ) to be a bit selfish as they choose to have a higher life style and spending pattern than traditional married couples who had to deal with reality, children ( damned expensive they are ) and expectations of responsibility. DINKs state theirs is a lifestyle choice, just as some say homosexuality is. YMMV, use a salt lick in this type of argument. BLOMO? No idea. I did find it in the Urban Dictionary, with a quick google search. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hom o%20blomo Also a plastic blow molding company, and a shirt from Diesel, the clothing maker, not a fuel. Bear in mind the Urban Dictionary is chock full of insults and messed up swear words supposedly used by urban youth and "blacks". ( I suspect half are made up terms used in isolated 'hoods if at all ) How does homosexual couples affect me? Only statistically. If there are more gay men, there are more women available to me. More gay women, less. Despite that, most of my gay friends have been women, partly, I suspect, because I understand the attraction of women, enjoy having sex with them ( but only in a committed relationship, monogamously, really dear, just you, I'm talking generalities... Yes dear. Right away, dear. ) and have a bit more trouble understanding the attraction of a hairy male butt. Also, that disparity in my friends may be that I know gay men, and don't know their preference. I don't have gaydar, apparently, I've had a beer in more than one bar that later I've been told was gay. Blake, The article ( far above ) that advocates the stopping of all preference for hetero marriage, is IMHO a form of "sour grapes/take my marbles home" "if I can't have it, no one should" mentality. I Think that IF you wont GOVERNMENT to do social engineering, most of the time you are going to get really bad results. Like the forced sterilizations of the "feeble minded" and minorities, the eugenics program to destroy the Black family in the US, including Planned Parenthood, founded for the purpose of killing as many Black babies as possible, ( succeeding very impressively ) and a variety of Progressive programs mostly designed to ruin the family, the economy, education, and freedoms. Not that those are the stated goals of most Progressive programs, just the actual results and desires as expressed quietly amongst themselves. We give preference to married couples where we do, in an attempt to have stable relationships and ensure care for children. That is considered a good conservative goal and set of values. Seems to me those same values would encourage conservative approval for civil partnerships in other combinations than 1 man, 1 woman, and history shows those partnerships do indeed promote stability and child rearing capacity. The poor single mother is the consequence of the progressive assault on family values, costs us all a huge amount in tragedy, crime, welfare, medical, and social disasters. Ann Coulter has written extensively on this assault on American life. She says it better than I do, and the vicious attacks on her for saying that single motherhood is a tragedy seem to indicate she's right. While the drive to gay marriage may be pushed by the same evil/deluded progressive folk, I don't see it having the same horrific effect on society as the "Murphy Brown" illusion. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Anyone, please - how does it affect you if two men or two women choose to marry one another? It redefines and degrades the meaning of the institution of marriage. It doesn't much affect otherwise until the govt starts forcing everyone to recognize the new definition. Then it forces me to pay taxes and run my business partly in support of the homosexual lifestyle. It harms my children when they are forced to be brainwashed by our public schools into believing that homosexuality is just fine. You see, the facts show exactly the opposite, disease, depression, drug abuse, suicide, premature death. Some argue that further endorsement of homosexuality is harmful to society in that it further erodes the reverence we ought to have for marriage and family. It's logical reasoning. When the esteem of anything is diminished, it's value drops. When people no longer value something, they ignore or avoid it. The rate of marriage in nations that have redefined it to include homosexuals has plummeted. In short, it could have VERY significant detrimental effects on the core of well being in society, the family. There are other reasons such as the fact that it is a disease-ridden lifestyle, motivated mostly by unchecked male sex drive. Two anything want to call themselves "married"? No one is stopping or protesting that. You don't seem to comprehend the actual issue if that is what you imagine the contention is all about. I've answered your question. Now you answer mine. | ||
| Blake |
Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its inherent characteristic of being optimum for raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Just a simple answer? | ||
| Blake |
Tom (Sifo), You seem to have ignore my comments showing that the govt, we the people, do indeed have a very serious and valid vested interest in supporting and promoting traditional marriage. In short: Marriage is by far the optimum basis for creating and raising future generations of successful, happy, healthy Americans. I don't see a "marriage business" by our govt. Characterizing it so seems disingenuous. Nobody is forced to involve any govt in their personal relations. People do so voluntarily to establish a legal standing and contract which is binding under the law. People are perfectly free to simply cohabit and file their income tax as "single." There are very compelling reasons why we the people bestow special privileges to traditional marriage, namely it is very good in that it benefits society as a whole, promotes the general well-being of all Americans. If you want to remove govt support for traditional marriage, I think the onus is upon you to show that we do not have a serious valid vested interest in it. I do get your drift though, and I tend to agree on many other issues. Just not this one. There are some behaviors that are entirely right, good, and beneficial that we ought to promote. Not mandate or coerce, just gently, through positive reinforcement, promote. As in promote the general welfare. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, Other than the anecdotal, can you point to any serious study that shows that "those same values would encourage conservative approval for civil partnerships in other combinations than 1 man, 1 woman, and history shows those partnerships do indeed promote stability and child rearing capacity"? California already provides for that. Federal law does not disallow legal contract between two people. Many states facilitate such contracts of civil partnership. Seems to me we ought not promote lifestyles that have been proven not just inferior, but highly risky, and detrimental to society in general. You can't read the CDC's report on the prevalence of serious disease, depression, drug abuse and suicide among the male homosexual community and come to any other conclusion. I just don't see a valid argument (one not based purely on emotion) for promoting such behavior, let alone equating it to behavior, traditional marriage, which has demonstrated the opposite, that it is very beneficial. Homosexual behavior, acting out on the homosexual compulsion, is like any other destructive behavior. It ought not be promoted, it certainly ought not be equated to marriage. That is nothing but a lie. Ought people be free to behave as they like? As long as they do not risk the well being of others, absolutely. Homosexual men are prohibited from donating blood. Why? | ||
| Jim_cullen |
The simple answer is it should be afforded special recognition. And I think it is. I've been happily married 31 years and many recognize that as special. But that doesn't mean that special recognition should be exclusive legal or religious recognition. In religion, that decision needs to be left up to the religion's governing body. And the same applies to the legal system. I see a growing segment of society saying is that legal recognition should no longer be exclusive to heterosexuals. And I think that's what really torques your jaw. Other than that, there's lots to object to in your question/statement. Mainly the use of emotional appeal (barrier to critical thinking, Philosophy 101) versus fact. For example, commitment is neither exclusive to nor well practiced by heteros. Same sex couples, with a little help, raise families. Describe what's inherent in a hetero couple that optimizes happy, healthy families? There's more, but what's the point? But I can't help noticing that since unique means one of a kind, someone who is as intelligent as you saying something like "exceptionally unique" tells me your statement is constructed to attempt to persuade by loading up on flowery vocabulary to camouflage the fact that your argument is weak. Just my opinion | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"Also, that disparity in my friends may be that I know gay men, and don't know their preference. I don't have gaydar, apparently, I've had a beer in more than one bar that later I've been told was gay. " been there. One of my closest friends came out a few years ago, I had ZERO clue that he had any tendencies like that. Doesn't matter - he is my friend because who he is, not what he is. Same for at my work, there are two KNOWN homosexuals, one woman, one man, they're just normal folks who are pleasant to talk to and work with. Blake thank you for your response. To answer your question, I think that it SHOULD be a special recognition, but I disagree with the idea it can only be a man and woman, but feel it should be with two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. As I've said before, there are many societies that raise children without a father in the home, to 'substitute' they use brothers and uncles. That said, having a man and woman to raise a child, to me, seems most effective, with the both in one house with the child. To me it makes sense. Problem is the incredibly high divorce rate and birth rate of non-married couples. These are heterosexuals but yet they still face the 'problems' a homosexual will face in raising a child - lacking a woman or man in the home to raise the child. And about this comment.... "It harms my children when they are forced to be brainwashed by our public schools into believing that homosexuality is just fine. You see, the facts show exactly the opposite, disease, depression, drug abuse, suicide, premature death. " I agree with several of these things - there is a high rate of STDs among homosexual men, just like you said about their high level of sexual lusts. But I think a few of the things you've listed has less ot do with the fact they are gay (directly) and more to do with how society, people like you to be more specific, treats them. They are depressed because they are oppressed. That would lead to things like suicide (kids who get picked on for being homosexual like was in the news a while back that a college kids roommate hid a camera and saw him and his boyfriend making out and picked on him about it, embarrassed and bummed because how he was being treated he killed himself), or drug use to help 'escape' the harsh world for a short bit in hopes it will help. Its a shame, these are terrible options, but people keep them down from being who they are openly and happily. "Homosexual men are prohibited from donating blood. " "There are other reasons such as the fact that it is a disease-ridden lifestyle, motivated mostly by unchecked male sex drive." both of these are centered around male homosexuals, do you feel differently about female homosexuals? Blake - overall I am very surprised by your during this. You haven't resorted to name-calling or anything over the top. THanks for keeping civil. Even though we disagree its good we can have a civil conversation on the topic. Thanks dude. | ||
| Aesquire |
not anecdotal evidence, but thousands of years of experience in marriage, 2 people, 1 man 4 wives ( and concubines, as the Prophet allows ) and larger groups. The stability of the Mormons, pre Utah Statehood, and the availability of multiple wives to rear children is obvious compared to "modern" tax & ( deliberately depressed ) economic families, where both mom & dad work to makes ends meet, and increasingly single mothers. Children are raised in ever increasing numbers by Grandmother, and the State paid daycare system. Fathers aren't in the equation at all more and more. 70% illegitimacy rate, nation wide in black families. 80% abortion rate in NYC for black mothers. Hispanic, asian, and white families are doing better, and the further you get from a major metropolitan area, the better, but the hills are alive with the sound of single moms trying to work and raise a child with the Holy State as a Father substitute. More and more. Now, as I said, the gay marriage thing is only a tiny part of the deliberate destruction of family and replacement by Holy State care from being allowed to be born to allowed to die. ( Obamacare is, in part, eugenics ) I don't disagree that promiscuous hedonism is a breeder of disease, despair and ruined lives. I suspect, though have no proof that a lot of depression and trauma in gay men is the problem of growing up mistreated by a sexually uptight and repressive society. ( Americans, as a group are far more repressed than Europeans.. Generalization, I admit ) That accounts for a large part of the suicide problem. Monogamy would help solve the sexually transmitted disease problem, ( which is not as big an issue with female gays, but not no problem ) and legal partnerships would help there. "they" are going to call their relationships what they want no matter what you say, and you can say what you want about it, for now. Not all agree. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344287/deat h-family-mark-steyn Gay marriage? It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.” That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right. They’ve figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did — that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within. On the other hand, there are those who argue it’s a victory for the powerful undertow of bourgeois values over the surface ripples of sexual transgressiveness: Gays will now be as drearily suburban as the rest of us. A couple of years back, I saw a picture in the paper of two chubby old queens tying the knot at City Hall in Vancouver, and the thought occurred that Western liberalism had finally succeeded in boring all the fun out of homosexuality. | ||
| 99savage |
Lot of prattling here about "LOVE"and I suppose great for those that get it but why is "LOVE" the concern of the government at any level? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
you want to know what degrades the notion of marriage ?...? A 50% divorce rate. more so, if it is your second or third - or what the hell 4th plus A 'life' prison sentence equates to about 7 years - it is why convicted murderers end up with multiple 'life' sentences .... so death to us part.... about 7 years as well I won't get married in the American legal machine. not ever. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Do you think Dodgeball should be banned at all elementary schools? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
nope, Smear the Queer either. but I grew up before PC. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Saw a guy on tv speaking about (Dodgeball) how it helps kids develop skills needed to learn how to lose and also learn how to win... adapt, overcome... I agreed with 100% of what he said. Some kids will learn from it, others may not... you can hear that from teachers of any subject. Seems like the gays whine like they didn't get out of the way in time and keep getting smacked in the face. But... Simon says if you move faster you wont get hit. So... move faster and it won't hurt so much... adapt accept and move on. (I know easy to say) But from what I see, people are arguing too many different things and the one main thing they should respect and NOT change is the definition of the one word: Marriage. It it has such special meaning... why change it?? It doesn't need to be changed. Can't you gay people come up with your own fregin name? Civil Union Civil Commitment CU-Marriage (civil union) G-Marriage (gay) If you all pushed for the same thing (anything other than changing the definition of the word Marriage) you might get it... and would be accepted by laws faster... then ya'll could all go get gay unionized. And majority of the people you are offending would stop fighting back and accept you more. | ||
| Sifo |
Tom (Sifo), You seem to have ignore my comments showing that the govt, we the people, do indeed have a very serious and valid vested interest in supporting and promoting traditional marriage. Yes I did ignore that. No offense intended, but I was trying to ignore all your comments on this subject. Here's why. I largely agree with what you're saying (with some areas of concern), but you are quite capable of fleshing out an argument without my input. Because of those facts, I just didn't feel the need to pile on to that reasoning. What I am trying to point out, is that when the government gets involved in picking winners/losers, good/bad, correct/incorrect, no matter how good the intentions, it's only a matter of time before government involvement grows to the point that it causes problems. Social matters tend to be complicated and the government makes simple things complicated. Government makes complicated things intolerable. The real question is are we all being treated equally under the law. I can certainly see the argument that we all have the same nudge from the government to enter into a traditional relationship. For various reasons, some of us choose not to follow the nudge. Not only gays either. That seems like fair treatment to me though, and I have not heard where it violates any Constitutional issues. Now we have gays claiming to be treated unfairly. I can see their point too. To give them the resolution that they are asking for has clear conflicts with the First Amendment though. To me, that is intolerable. To many, it's just another day. I'm just trying to point out that if gays feel that strongly about their current treatment under the law, the way to correct it isn't by causing further legal conflicts by legalizing gay marriage. The way to correct it is by getting government out of marriage for everyone. Would that be better for us as a nation? I'm not sure. It cuts both ways. At least it wouldn't further subvert the Constitution. I would like to think that I'm not in the minority in that desire, but I'm not really sure at this point. It's clear that we managed to reelect someone who has no problem at all in running roughshod over the Constitution. That's a far bigger issue to me than what gays do in their bedroom. What they do in public at times I do have issues with, but would have the same issue with that going on at a Straight Pride event. | ||
| Sifo |
Just how complicated can this stuff get? http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rejects-divorce-transg ender-pregnant-man-162832151.html Their kids are sure to need a lifetime of therapy to work out issues. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
A 21st Century Frankenstein! And it gave birth too!!  | ||
| Blake |
>>> I see a growing segment of society saying is that legal recognition should no longer be exclusive to heterosexuals. And I think that's what really torques your jaw. Not exactly. I think my statements above lay out my objections fairly concisely. You comments are vague. We already have legal recognition for homosexual partners in many states. Yes, my question concerns recognizing that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Why is that a problem? You really haven't answered that question, have you. Make a case that other types of partners ought be afforded legal facilitations to aid their various mutually agreed personal contracts. Fine! I'd likely support that. But to say that other types of partnerships are the same as marriage is a lie, period. It offends to state that the inherent natural ability to procreate is vital and unique? What other type of human partnership has that ability? Is it or is it not vital to the health of our society? Thanks for trying. Yes, I am VERY concerned about where our culture is headed. Rome comes to mind. Brian, The stats on divorce are not so bad as you think, but even if they were, they are not justification for further degrading the meaning of marriage. If you lose half your money, do you toss the rest into the sewer? The actual statistic in America is that about 70% of first marriages do NOT end in divorce. The 50% divorce number is for ALL marriages, not just first time marriages. If two once-divorced people marry to each other and then they divorce, that counts as three marriages ended in divorce. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
FYI: New Riding Game ..... Accept it so I can post the next task!!! |
