Tolgak 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteMassachusetts divorce rate before gay marriage was legal: .25%
After gay marriage was legal: .22%
Better get out there and tell them their marriages are doomed.
Have a look at Scandinavia. Haven't they been doing it for a bit longer too . . . ?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,255
QuoteI'd imagine you'd find them still there. What I have done is provided what's hopefully a more coherent point of view.
It's not coherent, it completely contradicts most of what you've previously written.
QuoteBy the simple fact it isn't called marriage.
So fucking what it's not called marriage? How does that affect anything if the two are functionally identical?
QuoteGay marriage validates homosexuality (the abnormal)and undermines the institution of marriage.
How does it undermine the institution of marriage? How does it affect any straight person's marriage?
QuoteIf gay people feel they're discriminated against, as Bill points out, aren't single people equally discriminated against by the benefits granted to married couples?
Hah! Since when did this become about benefits for you? Don't even pretend that's an element of your argument, it's not something you've even mentioned so far.
QuoteAllowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It invalidates it.
No it doesn't. A 'normal' straight couple's marriage will remain exactly the same as it otherwise would have been, regardless of who else is getting married.
And regardless of all that, you're still talking around the question! Who gets hurt by this 'normalising the abnormal'?
And you've also ignored another cutting question that I'll have to assume you simply can't answer; What happens to a species when you introduce gay marriage that doesn't happen when you introduce gay civil unions?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
No. You said that you favor 'a' (which you put in italics for emphasis) civil union which provides rights to gays equal to those rights associated with marriage. That is what you said. In order for this to happen, changes would need to be made to the term 'civil union', because at this time, they areNOT equal.
QuoteQuoteQuote>Allowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It
>invalidates it.
There are tens of thousands of legally married couples here in California. No one's marriage was "invalidated" by that.
Not speaking of an individual marriage:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1
''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."
Nice to hear that supporters of gay marriage also supportive of incestuous marriage though. . .
I have to fucking laugh everytime I hear the institution of marriage... or the sanctity of marriage..
If its so fucking sanctified and institutional why is the divorce rate at like 60% overall??? And child support so high when daddy walks away and will no longer take responsibility.
Social and cultural issues cause that; not marriage itself. You identify an area of what's wrong; marriage breakdown.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,255
Quote''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA....
...Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood."
You just can't help falling for the propaganda, can you? Even the author of the article admits that it was a pre-existing trend, and does nothing to demonstrate that the advent of same sex registered partnerships* has accelerated the pre-existing decline.
* Didja read that bit, Champ? Not same sex marriage, which you are opposed to, but same sex registered partnerships, which you have said you are OK with! Are you arguing against yourself on purpose?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteI'd imagine you'd find them still there. What I have done is provided what's hopefully a more coherent point of view.
It's not coherent, it completely contradicts most of what you've previously written.
Well, isn't that a shame? I'm still against gay marriage. Further to that, I've identified a point where, through excessive wine consumption, I have felt it necessary to make a more coherent viewpoint.
You, of all people, should appreciate that. This is my honest viewpoint. Why does it always make you so angry and wasp-ish? Why does a person with a different point of view make you so angry? It sometimes cracks me up with laughter, but that isn't my intention.
QuoteBy the simple fact it isn't called marriage.
So fucking what it's not called marriage? How does that affect anything if the two are functionally identical?
Fucking functionally is the key word. There's your answer. Straight people and gay people are different, hence a marriage and a civil union.
QuoteGay marriage validates homosexuality (the abnormal)and undermines the institution of marriage.
How does it undermine the institution of marriage?
Through the simple reason marriage has always been for a husband and wife. If they chose, and traditionally most would, that they'd have children, there now existed a solid foundation for the rearing of the children. By allowing gay marriage, the reasoning for doing so equally applies to incestuous couples, and polygamists. This is undermining. But then, you're probably all for that, eh?
QuoteHow does it affect any straight person's marriage?
It's not in regards to an individual straight couples marriage; it's in regards to marriage itself, with future social implications.
QuoteIf gay people feel they're discriminated against, as Bill points out, aren't single people equally discriminated against by the benefits granted to married couples?
Hah! Since when did this become about benefits for you? Don't even pretend that's an element of your argument, it's not something you've even mentioned so far.
As mentioned earlier - I'm sober at this point and I have indeed questioned why I'm against gay marriage. So as I question my beliefs I'll no doubt come up with other reasons to support them. And the more I give it consideration, the more I'm against gay marriage.
Getting angrier?
QuoteAllowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It invalidates it.
No it doesn't. A 'normal' straight couple's marriage will remain exactly the same as it otherwise would have been, regardless of who else is getting married.
As previously mentioned I'm not referring simply to an individual couple.
QuoteAnd regardless of all that, you're still talking around the question! Who gets hurt by this 'normalising the abnormal'?
I already answered this for you. Here's a similiar answer, worded differently for you; children and society. We already live in times where numerous social problems are blamed on the breakdown of the marriage. By gay marriage undermining marriage; and also opening the doors to incestuous marriage and polygamy, which will further undermine marriage, the increasing frequency of marriage breakdown can be expected to increase.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1
QuoteAnd you've also ignored another cutting question that I'll have to assume you simply can't answer; What happens to a species when you introduce gay marriage that doesn't happen when you introduce gay civil unions?
I tried that on some ants but have yet to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion . . .
Who knows? Less undermining of the institution of marriage? Have you conclusive answers?
Now, could you now take the effort to explain why you're so for gay marriage? It seems very evident you are. Just don't let your answer be because it won't cause any harm, as you've mentioned earlier.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Amazon 7
QuoteNow, could you now take the effort to explain why you're so for gay marriage? It seems very evident you are. Just don't let your answer be because it won't cause any harm, as you've mentioned earlier.
Fairplay... not creating second class citizens.... treating all citizens the same no matter who they are.
QuoteQuote''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA....
...Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood."
You just can't help falling for the propaganda, can you? Even the author of the article admits that it was a pre-existing trend, and does nothing to demonstrate that the advent of same sex registered partnerships* has accelerated the pre-existing decline.
* Didja read that bit, Champ? Not same sex marriage, which you are opposed to, but same sex registered partnerships, which you have said you are OK with! Are you arguing against yourself on purpose?
Yes, I read that part. It only makes me question my earlier thoughts of tolerance towards gay civil unions.
Further to that, it's fairly obvious there's an increasing trend of marriage breakdown in the Western world. That's the crux of the issue. I believe same sex marriage will increase this trend.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteQuoteQuote>Allowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It
>invalidates it.
There are tens of thousands of legally married couples here in California. No one's marriage was "invalidated" by that.
Not speaking of an individual marriage:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1
''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."
Nice to hear that supporters of gay marriage also supportive of incestuous marriage though. . .
I have to fucking laugh everytime I hear the institution of marriage... or the sanctity of marriage..
If its so fucking sanctified and institutional why is the divorce rate at like 60% overall??? And child support so high when daddy walks away and will no longer take responsibility.
Sometimes it is the woman who walks away, needless to say, every circumstance is slightly different.
No matter whether it is the man or woman who leaves, the obligation to support the kids and be involved in their lives never should be ignored.
Amazon 7
Tell that to my low life scumbag step brother who had 4 kids and walked away from them in San Diego and went home to Chicago Heights IL and spent all of their young lives working under the table so he would not have to give his ex or them anything at all. This is of course the oldest of the brothers.. who could do no wrong. 
Sounds like a piece of shit to me, he also lives in a scumbag town.
BTW if she took it to court they would order him to pay up or go to prison.
Not working is not considered to be a reason to not pay, they would investigate and find out.
BTW if she took it to court they would order him to pay up or go to prison.
Not working is not considered to be a reason to not pay, they would investigate and find out.
QuoteQuoteNow, could you now take the effort to explain why you're so for gay marriage? It seems very evident you are. Just don't let your answer be because it won't cause any harm, as you've mentioned earlier.
Fairplay... not creating second class citizens.... treating all citizens the same no matter who they are.
How are they second class citizens? They're only different through their abnormal sexuality? Why should an institution of husband and wife have to change to accomodate this abnormality?
We can't treat all citizens the same, no matter who they are, because some are different.
Why should we risk undermining marriage - in a culture where it's already breaking down with increasing frequency (and causing numerous social problems), with an abnormal minority?
In that case, lets allow incestuous marriage - let's not even consider the implications of doing so!
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Well, isn't that a shame? I'm still against gay marriage. Further to that, I've identified a point where, through excessive wine consumption, I have felt it necessary to make a more coherent viewpoint.
You, of all people, should appreciate that. This is my honest viewpoint. Why does it always make you so angry and wasp-ish? Why does a person with a different point of view make you so angry? It sometimes cracks me up with laughter, but that isn't my intention.
You, of all people, should appreciate that. This is my honest viewpoint. Why does it always make you so angry and wasp-ish? Why does a person with a different point of view make you so angry? It sometimes cracks me up with laughter, but that isn't my intention.
Despite the fact that I disagree intently with your POV, I am impressed with your patience throughout this thread. The problem is, your viewpoint is not coherent. To speak for myself, your 'honest viewpoint' makes me angry because it's blatantly homophobic.
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
I see only two reasons to get married. The first and most obvious, because it's likely that a future girlfriend of mine will believe this way, and it would make her happy to go through with it. The other is, of course, the government benefits.
If we get government benefits for committing to another person on paper, we should all get those same benefits for that action. There should be no religious test for that commitment.
Opponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is a religious institution. Great, so leave the damn government out of it. It not only prevents government intrusion on your religious beliefs, it prevents religious intrusion on the beliefs of others. It's a win-win scenario. Keep the government out of the church, don't force them to marry gay people, don't disallow them from marrying gay people, the gay people will find churches that will accommodate them. Marriage solely through a church wont change a damn thing about your interaction with the law.
As others have said before, the only government option should be the civil union. No requirement for a religious marriage to obtain, equal rights across the board.
I think the opponents of gay marriage are extremely hypocritical. They bitch about how the government tramples on their religious rights, when the laws they vote for trample on the religious rights of other religions.
Let's be honest here: You don't want religious freedom in this country, you want evangelical supremacy.
Regarding the vet in the video at the start of this thread: I think he knows the true meaning of fighting for one's country.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites