86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How far will it go? Male people aren't fundamentally wrong. Neither are left or right handed people. Straight people are fundamentally right. You might as well support rather immoral people, who're quite rightly in the minority, if you're going to go down that road.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with LGBT people, either. They are no less fundamentally right than straight people.

Humans are not the only species to have same gender sex, so one can hardly make the argument that being gay is unnatural.

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

[vortexring 0]

I'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children?

'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]

In the sense you're putting it into you're not wrong. But your sense is wrong, in the context that there's elements of sexuality that is wrong. That in itself leads to a logical conclusion.

'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.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children?

The significant difference that immediately comes to mind is that those in support of same sex marriage are generally supporting it only between two legally consenting adults.

I'm curious as to how you came to your conclusion that same sex relationships are wrong.

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

[BikerBabe 0]

hrm...so i guess it's possible for penguins to have rational thought and be "wrong"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

Wow, i didn't know animals had moral codes. So much for that "god made man special" thing, right?

And this ability for animals to judge right or wrong opens up so many more cans of worms. i mean, if they can do that, we might wanna stop exploiting them, huh? I mean, they must KNOW it's wrong to put chemicals in their eyes and keep them in tiny cages so they taste better when we eat 'em, right?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[vortexring 0]

I'm fascinated to know how you come to your conclusion that same sex marriages are right.

You're the one that brought nature into the equation. I gave you an example of nature and sexuality, and where it's fundamentally 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.'

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

This is the Speaker's Corner, so debate is likely to be ignited anyway. I stress I observe that many people who DO believe in allowing gay marriage, also is AGAINST forcing churches to do the marrying and instead letting the city hall do it. These are two different 'issues' in their eyes... I can totally understand; it makes no sense to let a church of a dramatically different religion be forced to marry a couple of totally different religion anyway.

Regardless of whether you don't believe in gay marriage which I understand many are uncomfortable with, it just bears worth pointing out many gays don't believe in forcing churches to do it, a separate issue altogether...

Please do not think I am of the opinion gays should not have married privileges.

I just think it is wrong for a government to do something that the very institutions who created the idea of marriage do not agree with.

If the only difference is a title and everyone gets what they want, is that such a bad compromise?

Words have no meaning unless they are backed by actions.

Call it marriage for all I care, but to have our government force the issue is a disaster.

Civil Unions would certainly be enough, they can refer to it as a marriage, and yet still get the same privileges.

Is that so hard to accept?

[warpedskydiver 0]

BTW I love Bi Girls and gay chicks have always liked me.

They used me like a well trained bird dog!

I could always detect a chick that was hot for them.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

hrm...so i guess it's possible for penguins to have rational thought and be "wrong"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

Wow, i didn't know animals had moral codes. So much for that "god made man special" thing, right?

And this ability for animals to judge right or wrong opens up so many more cans of worms. i mean, if they can do that, we might wanna stop exploiting them, huh? I mean, they must KNOW it's wrong to put chemicals in their eyes and keep them in tiny cages so they taste better when we eat 'em, right?

There are numerous cases of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom. Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . . .

'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

I'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children?

Do you not realise that there is a difference between a child and a consenting adult?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

But your sense is wrong, in the context that there's elements of sexuality that is wrong.

Why is being gay wrong?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I'm fascinated to know how you come to your conclusion that same sex marriages are right.

When two consenting adults want to get married and that decision doesn't hurt anyone else, what about it is wrong?

Quote

You're the one that brought nature into the equation. I gave you an example of nature and sexuality, and where it's fundamentally wrong.

What example?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . .

So marriage is wrong?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm fascinated to know how you come to your conclusion that same sex marriages are right.

There is everything right about two adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together being allowed to get married, whether they be the same sex or not. I don't see it as a gays versus straights issue; I see it as an equal rights for all people issue.

Quote

You're the one that brought nature into the equation. I gave you an example of nature and sexuality, and where it's fundamentally wrong.

In which post(s) did you offer such examples? Can you point them out? (Post numbers are fine; there's no need to link to them.) I missed them.

Being gay is not unnatural; it occurs with many species naturally. It has also occurred among humans for millennia, predating any modern culture.

If sex is between consenting adults, why does it matter whether the participants are of the same or different genders? Why is it fundamentally wrong if they are of the same gender?

If I recall correctly, you're a religious person. Do you believe in Creationism or intelligent design? If so, please explain the prostate in God/the designer's grand design.

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

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Quote

hrm...so i guess it's possible for penguins to have rational thought and be "wrong"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

Wow, i didn't know animals had moral codes. So much for that "god made man special" thing, right?

And this ability for animals to judge right or wrong opens up so many more cans of worms. i mean, if they can do that, we might wanna stop exploiting them, huh? I mean, they must KNOW it's wrong to put chemicals in their eyes and keep them in tiny cages so they taste better when we eat 'em, right?

There are numerous cases of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom. Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . . .

Oh my dear Lord in heaven. you're serious, aren't you?

for the first time...i'm speechless. I have no words. I'm gonna go join the dudeism movement and just give up. it's hard to care anymore when i read statements like that.

As for not calling it a marriage, who the fuck cares, it's a WORD. If you want to call it a civil union, fine, just don't bitch and moan when you see how much the government will have to spend to change the language in EVERY SINGLE LAW that mentions "married", "spouse", "husband", or "wife". Because if you don't think some insurance company is going to deny coverage of a "civil union partner" because the law says "wife" and the civil union happens to be two men...well, you need to come back to the real world.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children?

Do you not realise that there is a difference between a child and a consenting adult?

What do you think? More importantly; address the last point I made to you, not the point I made to someone else.

'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]

Quote

Quote

Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . .

So marriage is wrong?

Pay more attention to the context.

'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

I just think it is wrong for a government to do something that the very institutions who created the idea of marriage do not agree with.

The institutions that first created the idea of marriage no longer exist. As such their opinions probably aren't that relevant.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I just think it is wrong for a government to do something that the very institutions who created the idea of marriage do not agree with.

The institutions that first created the idea of marriage no longer exist. As such their opinions probably aren't that relevant.

Got a citation for that assertion or are you just flapping your mouth?

I won't be holding my breath because you cannot prove what you say.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children?

Do you not realise that there is a difference between a child and a consenting adult?

What do you think?

I think that you do not, otherwise you could not possibly have used the argument you did.

Quote

More importantly; address the last point I made to you

I have, and now I am again.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As for not calling it a marriage, who the fuck cares, it's a WORD. If you want to call it a civil union, fine, just don't bitch and moan when you see how much the government will have to spend to change the language in EVERY SINGLE LAW that mentions "married", "spouse", "husband", or "wife". Because if you don't think some insurance company is going to deny coverage of a "civil union partner" because the law says "wife" and the civil union happens to be two men...well, you need to come back to the real world.

Pragmatically, that's how I feel about marriage versus civil unions. I think it would cost a lost of time and money over semantics.

More idealistically, I think the term stinks of separate but equal. I would not, however, be opposed to the government recognizing all marriages between consenting adult couples as civil unions, and leaving couples joined in civil unions to be "married" by their churches according to their own beliefs.

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

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm fascinated to know how you come to your conclusion that same sex marriages are right.

There is everything right about two adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together being allowed to get married, whether they be the same sex or not. I don't see it as a gays versus straights issue; I see it as an equal rights for all people issue.

Quote

Sorry - I obviously disagree. Being that it's two consenting adults doesn't make it right.

Quote

You're the one that brought nature into the equation. I gave you an example of nature and sexuality, and where it's fundamentally wrong.

In which post(s) did you offer such examples? Can you point them out? (Post numbers are fine; there's no need to link to them.) I missed them.

Have a look yourself - it isn't difficult.

Quote

Being gay is not unnatural; it occurs with many species naturally. It has also occurred among humans for millennia, predating any modern culture.

If sex is between consenting adults, why does it matter whether the participants are of the same or different genders? Why is it fundamentally wrong if they are of the same gender?

It's the marriage that's wrong. It's the normalisation of something that's wrong, that's wrong! Whenever in human society did we have gay weddings? It's wrong.

Quote

If I recall correctly, you're a religious person. Do you believe in Creationism or intelligent design? If so, please explain the prostate in God/the designer's grand design.

Sorry, I'm not religious.

'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.'

• Quote

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just think it is wrong for a government to do something that the very institutions who created the idea of marriage do not agree with.

The institutions that first created the idea of marriage no longer exist. As such their opinions probably aren't that relevant.

Got a citation for that assertion or are you just flapping your mouth?

I won't be holding my breath because you cannot prove what you say.

Do you have any sources for your knowledge of a) which institutions created the idea of marriage and b) what their opinions are/were?

If not, then I guess we're both flinging bullshit and it's your word against mine (and not that it matters but unless you have any degrees in the field I'd say I'm more qualified on the matter than you are). Chin chin.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

hrm...so i guess it's possible for penguins to have rational thought and be "wrong"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

Wow, i didn't know animals had moral codes. So much for that "god made man special" thing, right?

And this ability for animals to judge right or wrong opens up so many more cans of worms. i mean, if they can do that, we might wanna stop exploiting them, huh? I mean, they must KNOW it's wrong to put chemicals in their eyes and keep them in tiny cages so they taste better when we eat 'em, right?

There are numerous cases of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom. Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . . .

Oh my dear Lord in heaven. you're serious, aren't you?

for the first time...i'm speechless. I have no words. I'm gonna go join the dudeism movement and just give up. it's hard to care anymore when i read statements like that.

As for not calling it a marriage, who the fuck cares, it's a WORD. If you want to call it a civil union, fine, just don't bitch and moan when you see how much the government will have to spend to change the language in EVERY SINGLE LAW that mentions "married", "spouse", "husband", or "wife". Because if you don't think some insurance company is going to deny coverage of a "civil union partner" because the law says "wife" and the civil union happens to be two men...well, you need to come back to the real world.

I'm in the real world. What are you getting so upset about? I believe Gay marraige to be wrong. I'm not anti-gay; but marrying gay people is akin to marrying humans with animals. It's 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.'

[mdrejhon 8]

I'm mostly neutral, in a "let things happen" way.
If gay marriage happens, great -- or if civil unions with full equivalent rights happen, great. (FWIW, where I live, Canada has legal gay marriage)

I do observe that marriage in many cultures pretty much predates highly-organized religion. In many cultures in many areas, it did not require government approval or religion approval to marry, back in many places in ancient history.

Many cultures independently came up with many independent ideas of marriage (or things they used a word that is now translated into modern English as 'marriage'), including of course, ancient same-sex rituals resembling same-sex marriage, whether using the word marriage or another. Whether it was male-female, same-species, same-family, cross-family, multiple-female (polygamy), same-sex, slave-like status, and whatever. One culture's/religion's idea of what is right for marriage, is different from another culture's/religion. As the world connected to each other and spread, many of these concepts fell out of favour, or became increasingly isolated, and more limited forms of marriage is now the dominant form today. What is happening today, might be a revert of certain types (in this case, same-sex) that was formerly highly suppressed in the last millenium or two, as long as it doesn't hurt others...

Yes, yes, it may be up to debate how the word 'marriage' was invented to describe a ceremony-and-then-lifelong-union that had long existed long before major forms of organized religion such as Christanity, etc. In that sense, I can understand that some may argue that a word (in this case 'marriage') was developed by later religions in history to assign to a long-preexisting ancient ritual that predated the major religions.

That said, there's a big history gap during the Middle Ages, since it was more supressed during that time period than during the ancient time period. It's all very interesting study, regardless whether one believes in same-sex marriage, or does not believe in....

Interesting history tidbit. Codex Theodosianus (Theodosian Code - A legal code compiled around the century AD 400's). Just before the Middle Ages. Check section 9.7.3 if you studied a little Latin. The same sex marriage debate isn't new. And, it's not even the only one.