But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

WinterBorn said:
The problem is thats not what happened. Men were jailed for having sex with other men. Or they were beaten or murdered and nothing was done.

Those same "Good Ol' Days" had spousal abuse swept under the rug, child abuse ignored, and more.

What goes on in the privacy of your bedroom is more private now than ever before. This is not about sex. The sex is happening in bedrooms all over the nation. That won't change, regardless of the outcome of this debate.

What this debate is about is the benefits bestowed on couples by the gov't.
Click to expand...

/yawn......what this debate is about is what benefits can the left force the government to bestow over the wishes of the general population......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there aren't any laws "against" gay marriage....there's never been such a thing to have a law against until folks tried to change the definition of marriage....
Click to expand...

Gays are allowed to marry now. They just do not receive the same benefits as the straight couples and the marriage is not recognized by the gov't.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/yawn......what this debate is about is what benefits can the left force the government to bestow over the wishes of the general population......
Click to expand...

The wishes of the general population would be the deciding factor if this were a democracy. But its not.

The debate is about whether the gov't can offer benefits to one portion of the population and deny them to another.




I still do not understand why people are up in arms against gay marriage. I does not change anything about their marriage. It does not effect them or even their religion's view of marriage. If your religion doesn't allow gays to marry, giving the benefits to gay couples that straight married people enjoy would not change that.
 
Southern Man said:
Queers can marry just like regular folks: one adult of the opposite sex. No discrimination there.
Click to expand...

And why is that? You have latched onto Dixie's argument, but have not given any rational explanation as to why the gov't cares whether its a man & woman, man & man, or woman & woman.
 
Southern Man said:
Because its normal natural moral and healthy, everything that queers are not.

Why do you want to harm society?
Click to expand...

What harm will be done to society?

Do you advocate denying straights the ability to marry if they are abnormal, unnatural, immoral or unhealthy??

You claim sodomy is all those things, and yet I have not seen you advocate denying straights the ability to marry if the commit acts of sodomy.

If someone is immoral (atheists are, according to you) they are still allowed to marry as long as its the opposite gender. We even allow people serving life in prison the ability to marry.

If someone has a sexually transmitted disease, they are still allowed to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender.

BTW, the "natural" argument is a logical fallacy. If you are going to call others on logical fallacies, you really should avoid them yourself.



You still have not listed any reason why the gov't should not extend the benefits of marriage to gays. Your "its not normal, natural, moral, or healthy" argument has been slapped down so many times I amazed you still trot it out. But I guess if its all you have.....
 
From the Logical Fallacies link you provided:

"Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit."
 
WinterBorn said:
The problem is thats not what happened. Men were jailed for having sex with other men. Or they were beaten or murdered and nothing was done.

Those same "Good Ol' Days" had spousal abuse swept under the rug, child abuse ignored, and more.

What goes on in the privacy of your bedroom is more private now than ever before. This is not about sex. The sex is happening in bedrooms all over the nation. That won't change, regardless of the outcome of this debate.

What this debate is about is the benefits bestowed on couples by the gov't.
Click to expand...

The good ole days of ignorant bliss, when all our skeletons were in the closet.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there aren't any laws "against" gay marriage....there's never been such a thing to have a law against until folks tried to change the definition of marriage....
Click to expand...

Like when inter-racial coiuples tried to change the definition of marriage.

Do you have a tattoo that says:
Equal, but seperate
 
AssHatZombie said:
just like it's not ok to discriminate against white males in the work place.

WHy are your ethics situational?
Click to expand...

Never said it was. The low degree of suffering does not make AA acceptable. It makes it a low priority for things that need to be changed. I am looking at the forest you are focusing on a tree. The abused white male tree. :)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you mean, like someplace where it would actually BE a violation of constitutional rights?.....
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights were being violated before the Loving v Virginia ruling or case. The violation of individual rights took place under slavery well before it violated any Constitutional rights. The courts and Constitution are no more infallible than the will of the masses and have been swayed through time and perseverance just as the masses have. Sometimes the courts take the lead sometimes the masses through the legislature. But in a long view the winning side has always been those advocating furtherance of rights. The same will happen here.

"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1790.
 
WinterBorn said:
You still have not listed any reason why the gov't should not extend the benefits of marriage to gays.
Click to expand...

irrelevant question.....in both states where legal action was commenced to legitimize gay "marriage" the law already extended the same benefits to both marriage and civil unions......that approach was rejected by gays who demanded more than simply the extension of the same benefits....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nope
And for your edification; denying someones civil rights is a violation, period.
Click to expand...

painting yourself into a corner.....thus, there is no need to look for this mythical "proper venue".....it would be here, now.....the fact that no such law suit has been commenced or won shows that there is no violation.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
irrelevant question.....in both states where legal action was commenced to legitimize gay "marriage" the law already extended the same benefits to both marriage and civil unions......that approach was rejected by gays who demanded more than simply the extension of the same benefits....
Click to expand...

Separate but equal is not good enough. That approach has been rejected by our society and courts. The gay Jim Crow can go back in the closet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top