86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I have no problems with gays being seen as a legal couple with the
>same rights either.

OK cool.

> however, marriage is an institution that suppots providing and
> raising children within a society.

Do you think gays should have exactly the same rights as an infertile married couple? (i.e. adoption, inheritance, medical decisionmaking etc.)

Yes, but marriage has implications to society (if that is were you are headed) Adoption for gays is another thread I think. There are proven implications to the well being a child related to male female family settings vs single and gay families.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,425]

> There are proven implications to the well being a child related to
> male female family settings vs single and gay families.

And again, that is EXACTLY the argument used by the pastor who refused to marry the interracial couple.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> There are proven implications to the well being a child related to
> male female family settings vs single and gay families.

And again, that is EXACTLY the argument used by the pastor who refused to marry the interracial couple.

Yes, I know, but his comments were based on his opinion. what I posted about is based on mulitple studies done on the health of children.

not saying I agree with it (that is why I said it is for another thread) but it is something to be considered (not the pastors position).

After all, states have done shit to families for much less ........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,425]

>Yes, I know, but his comments were based on his opinion.

Not at all. Several studies have shown that children of interracial couples face more challenges than the children of single-race couples; he alluded to that in his statement.

>what I posted about is based on mulitple studies done on the health of
>children.

=============
An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.

"Pediatricians need to recognize that there are variations in families and learn what kind of advice to give them to optimize the child's development," said Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

The researcher and colleagues looked at data from 15 studies evaluating possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment, sexual orientation, and strengths. The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition.

"The vast consensus of the studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," Dr. Perrin said. "In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
===========

[rushmc 18]

ya, there is always studies one way or the other.

May end up not mattering in our life times however.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

ya, there is always studies one way or the other.

Right. So where's the link to the many studies that show your point of view?

Saying there are many studies is not the same as there actually being many studies.

- Dan G

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

ya, there is always studies one way or the other.

Right. So where's the link to the many studies that show your point of view?

Saying there are many studies is not the same as there actually being many studies.

You know how it goes...

I am sure there are even studies dennoting the outcomes of the drop the soap games in the formative years.

Liked it/ comfortable with themselves but its not for them
Liked it/ Not comfortable with themselves and better kick the ass of the first gay guy so no one would guess.
Liked it/ would never date a woman again.

Didn't like it / comfortable with themselves, but its not for them
Didn't Like it / Not comfortable with themselves and better kick the ass of the first gay guy they find so none of their buddies would guess.

Didn't like it/ Will never get near a woman because they guy is a total fucknugget and cant get a date anyway.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

It would make incestuous marriage easier. As it would equally make polygamous marriage easier.

From where do you reference such a conclusion?

If a government can change a century old institution that's specifically for a man and women because gay people feel it's their human right to enter into such an institution, then equally it applies to people who wish to practice incest, or have multiple partners.

Whilst some may think I'm homophobic, I can't understand why they wish to enter an institution for man and women. I'd imagine a significant amount of non-gay people sincerely wish gay people every happiness they're perfectly entitled to, for them to have equal rights, but marriage, through their sexuality, isn't one of them. As a man, I wouldn't insist it's my right to join a womens only gym (but how cool it would be if I could
I think if we had civil unions that could give gay people equal rights as married couples have, more people from both sexualities would be happy. Yet what if studies start showing an increasing decline in already lowering marriages, as noted in Scandinavia, from such unions? If you can exclusively pin-point gay civil unions as being detrimental to marriage, what's the solution for this?

And despite what some may believe, I've every sympathy for gay people who might face this marriage issue. But that doesn't stop me from believing what I, and many others, believe.

Marriage is for man and women.

'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.'

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I think if we had civil unions that could give gay people equal rights as married couples have, more people from both sexualities would be happy.

What would or should be the difference (if civil unions would "give gay people equal rights as married couples have") then, according to your belief?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,425]

>If a government can change a century old institution that's specifically
>for a man and women because gay people feel it's their human right to
>enter into such an institution, then equally it applies to people who wish
>to practice incest, or have multiple partners.

"If a government can change a century old institution and give women the vote, they have to give it to foreigners, too."

"If a government can change a century old institution and allow blacks to go to white schools, they have to allow apes to go to the same schools."

Same logic. Doesn't work in any of the above cases.

>I'd imagine a significant amount of non-gay people sincerely wish gay
>people every happiness they're perfectly entitled to, for them to have
>equal rights, but marriage, through their sexuality, isn't one of them.

Then they don't have equal rights.

>If you can exclusively pin-point gay civil unions as being detrimental to
>marriage, what's the solution for this?

If desegregating schools increases school violence, what's the solution to _that_? Restoring segregation? Or solving the school violence problem?

If marriages are going to fail because some bigots can't stand the thought of gays being married, and would rather divorce than share a ritual with the filthy, disgusting gays, then let them fail. We'll be better off as a people without such people raising children in a traditional marriage.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Indeed. And I've several reasons that I've posted earlier. Seems like you weren't paying attention.

Reasons that were thoroughly refuted. It's your own selective memory that's up the spout.

Where have you thoroughly refuted anything?

Quote

I see little effort in your reasoning for gay marriage, other than assertions such as what harm will it do?

I don't need any other reasoning than that.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Yet what if studies start showing an increasing decline in already lowering marriages, as noted in Scandinavia, from such unions?

Do you have any studies showing an increasing decline, or was it just a continuing decline?

Quote

If you can exclusively pin-point gay civil unions as being detrimental to marriage, what's the solution for this?

If you can. Can you? That's a very difficult goal you've set for yourself. Have you seen anything at all that 'exclusively pin-points' gay marriage as a factor in declining marriage rates or rising divorce rates?

Looking in isolation at marriage rates in a small group of countries that allow civil unions is certainly not sufficient - correlation does not imply causation.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>If a government can change a century old institution that's specifically
>for a man and women because gay people feel it's their human right to
>enter into such an institution, then equally it applies to people who wish
>to practice incest, or have multiple partners.

"If a government can change a century old institution and give women the vote, they have to give it to foreigners, too."

"If a government can change a century old institution and allow blacks to go to white schools, they have to allow apes to go to the same schools."

Same logic. Doesn't work in any of the above cases.

Sure, because by your logic, we'd have to allow the ridiculous. When did apes have human rights?


>I'd imagine a significant amount of non-gay people sincerely wish gay
>people every happiness they're perfectly entitled to, for them to have
>equal rights, but marriage, through their sexuality, isn't one of them.

Then they don't have equal rights.

Quote

Ok, if gay marriages are allowed, I, as a man, will go with my bride, a women, and insist it's our right to be married as a gay couple.

>If you can exclusively pin-point gay civil unions as being detrimental to
>marriage, what's the solution for this?

If desegregating schools increases school violence, what's the solution to _that_? Restoring segregation? Or solving the school violence problem?

If marriages are going to fail because some bigots can't stand the thought of gays being married, and would rather divorce than share a ritual with the filthy, disgusting gays, then let them fail. We'll be better off as a people without such people raising children in a traditional marriage.

Agreed. I'd also take offence at anyone who described gays as such. It's a genuine question though.

What is the solution?

'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.'

[vortexring 0]

Answer the questions I've addressed to yourself - and then I'll answer yours.

'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.'

[billvon 2,425]

>When did apes have human rights?

They never did, but many people equated blacks with apes to demonstrate that they should NOT have the same rights as people, and should not be allowed in schools with normal people. In which case the logic makes perfect sense.

>Ok, if gay marriages are allowed, I, as a man, will go with my bride,
>a women, and insist it's our right to be married as a gay couple.

OK. Fine with me.

>What is the solution?

I think the solution is to grant people equality under the law and then let people, not the government, try to save (or give up on) their marriages.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>When did apes have human rights?

They never did, but many people equated blacks with apes to demonstrate that they should NOT have the same rights as people, and should not be allowed in schools with normal people. In which case the logic makes perfect sense.

This is going round in circles . . . racism towards black people does not equate to people being against gay marriage. I find such logic offensive.

Quote

>Ok, if gay marriages are allowed, I, as a man, will go with my bride,
>a women, and insist it's our right to be married as a gay couple.

OK. Fine with me.

Why? We're not gay, so how could we justify a gay marriage? It'd be wrong.

'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 1,257]

Quote

Yes you do. I'd like an expanation of why gay marriage shown to be detrimental to normal marriage in the Netherlands

Where has gay marriage been shown to be detrimental to normal marriage in the Netherlands?

(In fact, since you haven't posted any links that mention the Netherlands, I've only got your word that marriage is having any problems there at all)

Quote

Obviously increasing evidence of marriage breakdown in the Netherlands isn't good enough for you, to name but one.

Since you haven't shown any of it, then no, it's not good enough. But, as explained in my last post, it wouldn't be good enough anyway, unless you can actually demonstrate a causative link between the two. Modern European society has gone through huge and continuing changes in the last few years, which have nothing to do with gay marriage, that could influence traditional marriage. You're treating the stats as if those societies exists in a kind of stasis in which the only change has been the introduction of Gay marriages. That's very naive.

Quote

I haven't made 'snide jabs' over your emotional state.... Dry your eyes.

Honestly dude, if that's not intentional hypocrisy then I can't even begin to describe how blind you are to your own behaviour. It's pretty much the funniest thing about you, this complete lack of self awareness.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Answer the questions I've addressed to yourself - and then I'll answer yours.

There were no questions addressed to me in that post. i've dealt with your questions to me in a different reply.

Your turn.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

And that's me for the night distinguished ladies and gentlemen! I noticed I've not replied to some points posters had addressed to me earlier. I'll make the effort to do so next time - if you're still interested. . .

'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.'

[billvon 2,425]

>racism towards black people does not equate to people being against
>gay marriage.

I didn't claim it was - but the logic used in both cases is quite similar, down to the language used.

>I find such logic offensive.

So do I.

>Why? We're not gay, so how could we justify a gay marriage?

Why do you have to justify it to anyone other than yourselves?

[labrys 0]

I wish the average dz.commer were given the right to lock one or two threads a year....

This is a massive "Who's on first" / "I know you are but what am I" fur ball.

I'm going to pick the hair out from between my teeth and say that it's POINTLESS to continue this thread.

Who's joining me?

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I wish the average dz.commer were given the right to lock one or two threads a year....

This is a massive "Who's on first" / "I know you are but what am I" fur ball.

I'm going to pick the hair out from between my teeth and say that it's POINTLESS to continue this thread.

Who's joining me?

Why? Cause you cant get that finality you want?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I wish the average dz.commer were given the right to lock one or two threads a year....

This is a massive "Who's on first" / "I know you are but what am I" fur ball.

I'm going to pick the hair out from between my teeth and say that it's POINTLESS to continue this thread.

Who's joining me?

Why? Cause you cant get that finality you want?

No... some people just have a lower tolerance for being bludgeoned with stupidity.

[DanG 1]

Still waiting on those studies. It should be easy for you, being as there are so many.

- Dan G

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No... some people just have a lower tolerance for being bludgeoned with stupidity.

Or with bigotry.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!