86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Pssst don't be hitting on him, his wife is territorial and jakee would be crushed as well.

Not these days mate

'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]

Blimey. Seems that thread died a death. Point still remains; would be delighted to hear about the marriage concept on this one - my status is neither here nor there - did that little fact make everyone abandon the argument? Bollox to that - forget me.

Gay marriage is wrong - to say otherwise is foolish.

'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]

Quote

Quote

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/20/86-year-old-wwii-vet.html

What a descent guy, understands what freedom means.

"Different but equal."

I'm just going to reiterate this post. Nothing's going to change my respect I have for this 86 year old. Amen.

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Gay marriage is wrong - to say otherwise is foolish.

So as you describe, being gay is not un-natural, homosexual acts are not un-natural, but gay marriage is??

I'm just having a hard time understanding why you have a problem with gay marriage?

There are other examples of marriages that exist between heterosexual couples that do not contribute to the survival of the species...are those 'wrong'?

[vortexring 0]

Yeah.

'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.'

[pbwing 0]

So for you, it's not really an issue about species and survivability...you just don't like the idea of gay marriage?

[vortexring 0]

Ultimately my problem with gay marriage is that it's wrong. That's all - introduce your wonderful gay marriages to a species; see how well they do. That's the point. The gay factor is easily tolerated in todays day and age - but tolerance doesn't make it right. What makes it wrong is the fact that it is wrong.

You wouldn't have the human race otherwise. Anything else would be unnatural.

What's the fuck wrong with that? What's wrong with wishing to attract a mate from the opposite sex and spend your life with her/him? That's the way we're biologically engineered. If you wish to be married to the same sex/tractor/sheep then what hope do you have?

It isn't exactly the way things were meant to be, is it?

If you're so inclined to desire unnatural acts, then surely we've a society that can deal with your issues, rather than stick a red hot poker up your ass. But to normalise such issues?

It's wrong. And all I've to say about people who'd wish gay marriages in their societies is that they're fuckin' massively stupid liberals.

Ya boo!

'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.'

[pbwing 0]

Again, what is wrong with it?

It seems like you are trying to explain that it's unnatural as it does nothing to ensure the survivability of the species, is that right??

Here's a question for you...Do you have a problem with heterosexual couples who marry and decide to never have children? How about elderly people getting married? Guess what. Neither of those things contribute to the survivability of the species either. Does that make their marriages wrong or unnatural?

[birdshit 0]

Quote

Gay marriage is wrong - to say otherwise is foolish.

You are wrong.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Don't think so - the majority of our societies would rather not tolerate it either. That in itself is a perfectly good argument.

No, it isn't. At various times the majority of our societies have not tolerated Jews, Blacks, the Irish and women who speak out of turn, to name but a few. They didn't have good arguments then, and they don't now.

Quote

And why wouldn't it not cause harm?

That's for you to explain, you fool. The unravelling of your double negative causes that sentence to mean "Why would it cause harm"? You're asking for an explanation of your own argument, and I don't have one. I'm the one saying it wouldn't cause harm.

Quote

The relationship is that both are wrong.

Why? Why is gay marriage wrong the way that murder is wrong.

Quote

If you wish your children to grow up in a society where simple things such as natural attraction to the opposite sex are muted, then crack on.

What are you talking about? Why would allowing gay marriage mute either my, your, or anybody else who's not gay anway's attraction to the opposite sex? What is this magical effect that you envisage flowing out from a gay wedding ceremony turning everyone within range into homosexuals?

Quote

I'd rather we went about things the NATURAL way;

You want most women to be in large harems for the rich and powerful alpha males?

Quote

I'd rather see a society where men and women are naturally attracted to each other, not one where fucking idiots say it's perfectly normal for the same sexes to be married to one another.

A) The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, they actually co-exist perfectly.

B) I'd rather see a society where all the homophobic Fascist pigs had died peacefully in their sleep, but we can't all get what we want.

Quote

Cos it's wrong.

Why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Ultimately my problem with gay marriage is that it's wrong. That's all - introduce your wonderful gay marriages to a species; see how well they do.

How well will they do? They'll do just fine, because the only ones entering into gay unions will be the gay ones!

Quote

That's the point.

That's your point? You don't want gay marriage because the species will survive just fine either with or without it? That's a shit point.

Quote

You wouldn't have the human race otherwise. Anything else would be unnatural.

You're pretending to be a retard again. If gay marriage was allowed and accepted we wouldn't have a human race? Just how many closet Gays do you think are out there who are going to stop breeding as soon as gay marriage becomes acceptable? Would you?

Quote

What's wrong with wishing to attract a mate from the opposite sex and spend your life with her/him?

Nothing. No-one's saying there is anything wrong with that. You would, again, have to be a certified moron to think that anybody here is saying that.

Why do you keep arguing from these ridiculous positions that have nothing to do with the discusson?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jumper3 0]

I've been following this thread though I live in Canada where gay marriage is already legally acknowledged, but I'm trying to understand your logic. While I don't believe that condoning gay marriage will start a process that would eventually lead to no heterosexuals, lets just say for argument's sake for a moment that it would.

If the entire world was to consist of only gay humans I seriously doubt that would be the end of our species anyway. Why? We are logical creatures by nature. We understand the basic concept that we must procreate in order for our species to survive. Many gay people feel a very strong desire to procreate; they just don't want to do it the "traditional" way. As a race, we would still have babies but would find other ways to achieve this. It may be more challenging for 2 men to have children biologically related to them, but it's pretty easy for 2 women. You could argue that this is not natural though - it's not how nature intended it to work. So what? If it was against the laws of nature, then it shouldn't work, but it does. If you still want to argue that it's not natural so it's still wrong, how do you justify medicine? Medicine is mankind using logic and knowledge to interfere with a natural process. Someone who has diabetes or any one of many other diseases would die if it wasn't for humans medically interfering with the disease's natural process. Should we stop all medical interference with nature because to do so is unnatural? If someone gets sick or hurt, should we wait and see if nature heals or kills them? Should heterosexual couples who cannot conceive in the traditional way not be given any medical assistance to help them procreate because it would be unnatural?

I'm not posing these questions in a snide manner, I'm trying to understand how you define "natural" and know where to draw the line.

Even in the unlikely event that the human species turns all or mostly gay, we would still survive.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Ultimately my problem with gay marriage is that it's wrong. That's all - introduce your wonderful gay marriages to a species; see how well they do.

How well will they do? They'll do just fine, because the only ones entering into gay unions will be the gay ones!

Quote

That's the point.

That's your point? You don't want gay marriage because the species will survive just fine either with or without it? That's a shit point.

Quote

You wouldn't have the human race otherwise. Anything else would be unnatural.

You're pretending to be a retard again. If gay marriage was allowed and accepted we wouldn't have a human race? Just how many closet Gays do you think are out there who are going to stop breeding as soon as gay marriage becomes acceptable? Would you?

Quote

What's wrong with wishing to attract a mate from the opposite sex and spend your life with her/him?

Nothing. No-one's saying there is anything wrong with that. You would, again, have to be a certified moron to think that anybody here is saying that.

Why do you keep arguing from these ridiculous positions that have nothing to do with the discusson?

If you are expecting logic instead of bigotry, I think you are wasting your time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Ok, I want to make frogs the leaders of my religious cult.

Fine with me. You can't marry them, of course, since they are not people. (And I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not really comparing gays to animals.)

>Seriously though, my point still remains, if you wish to make light of it,
>then shame on you.

I'm not making light of it. I am giving examples of "depraved" versions of sexuality that should still have the right to marry even if you (or someone) disapproves of that version of sexuality.

>Uh-huh, and are they breeding together?

Usually not, although some homosexual animal couples adopt other young and raise them. (Google Roy and Silo.)

Of course, many heterosexual couples do not breed together either.

> Is it the majority of the animals or the minority?

Usually the minority, although all species that have definable sex have demonstrated homosexuality. It's even more common in the animal kingdom than in the human realm.

>Please also provide evidence of animals partnering together
>permanently.

Any species that exhibits permanent pair-bonding has exhibited permanent pair-bonding with the same sex. There's a long list of such species in the book "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl.

>Animals partnering the same sex for life is abnormal; if they were to
>do so they'd soon cease to exist.

They DO do so, and they have not ceased to exist. I am surprised you cannot understand this.

[billvon 2,400]

>That's all - introduce your wonderful gay marriages to a species; see
>how well they do.

They've been doing pretty well for millions of years.

>What's wrong with wishing to attract a mate from the opposite sex and
>spend your life with her/him?

Absolutely nothing! And what's wrong with wishing to spend your life with someone of another race, religion, nationality or sexuality? Nothing - despite what some bigots think of you if you do.

>That's the way we're biologically engineered.

If that were true everyone who married would have children. They don't - so your theory doesn't fly.

[vortexring 0]

Ah, the joy of looking back at ones posts made during a period of excessive cabernet sauvignon consumption. . .

I'll try and explain why I don't believe in gay marriages a bit better: As human beings we're born with reproductive organs. As in mechanical items, you've the male and female connections. This is normal, it's how they were designed to be used. So with our reproductive organs, we've the opposite sex. We, as a species, are normally attracted to members of the opposite sex, and it's how we continue as a species. All very normal.

Homosexuality, and homosexual sex is therefore abnormal. Gay marriage is akin to normalising something that's abnormal, hence why I reject the concept.

I've nothing against gay people, neither do I believe homosexuality to be unnatural. To do believe it to be against the norm though - so I therefore don't believe in a same sex marriage.

It's the normalization of the abnormal that concerns me.

Perhaps the real crux to this issue is marriage in itself. If we're considering religious marriages then there's another can of worms to be discussed.

So to conclude, my issue with gay marriage is that it is abnormal. As simple as that.

'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 2,400]

>Homosexuality, and homosexual sex is therefore abnormal.

Abnormal as in "not the majority?" Agreed.

As in "wrong?" Disagreed. It is no more wrong than oral sex or missionary sex (we're not 'made' to copulate in those ways.) It is no more wrong from a reproductive aspect as contraception, and is no more wrong from a morality standpoint as interracial marriage.

We were made to walk; we have feet and legs. That's clear. There were times that people used that fact to argue first against mechanized transport, then against flying. Fortunately those people were (eventually) ignored - because it is the mind of humans, not the shape of their feet (or their penises) that determines what we see as right and wrong.

>It's the normalization of the abnormal that concerns me.

Interracial marriages have been normalized. Didn't destroy us. Contraception is now extremely commonplace. Hasn't meant the end of the human race. Gay pairbonding is quite common in nature. Doesn't mean that those species go extinct.

A gay marriage, in terms of reproductive ability, is no more abnormal than a heterosexual couple that decides to not have children. If you are going to systematically deny a class of people a right everyone else has, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

[Caitlin89 0]

It appears as though your main, if not single argument against gay marriage lies in the fact that gay marriage does not adequately foster childbearing practices.

Nearly 8% of married women aged 18-44 (in the US alone) are completely infertile. This obviously does not account for the men. Are you suggesting that these people be denied marriage also?

[vortexring 0]

It's the normalization of the abnormal that'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.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

It appears as though your main, if not single argument against gay marriage lies in the fact that gay marriage does not adequately foster childbearing practices.

Nearly 8% of married women aged 18-44 (in the US alone) are completely infertile. This obviously does not account for the men. Are you suggesting that these people be denied marriage also?

My argument is that I'm against the normalization of the abnormal.

'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.'

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

Quote

It appears as though your main, if not single argument against gay marriage lies in the fact that gay marriage does not adequately foster childbearing practices.

Nearly 8% of married women aged 18-44 (in the US alone) are completely infertile. This obviously does not account for the men. Are you suggesting that these people be denied marriage also?

My argument is that I'm against the normalization of the abnormal.

I see that now. I posted before reading your latest post. Still, 'abnormal' things were 'normalized' all throughout history. Interracial marriage was abnormal in the 1950's...

[vortexring 0]

Yeah, but there wasn't anything abnormal with interracial marriages in the first place.

'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.'

[Caitlin89 0]

Maybe, because 'normal' is such a subjective term, I am misunderstanding your definition of it.

[labrys 0]

Quote

My argument is that I'm against the normalization of the abnormal.

How do you feel about evolution? Isn't that ultimately the normalization of the abnormal? Be it genetic or social it's evolution that leads to survival of a species.

One could argue that "normal" animal procreation doesn't usually involve pairing / mating for life. Far fewer animals do it than humans. Humans started forcing permanent pairing as a means to keep land ownership and wealth flowing along lines of inheritance in most cultures.

When we started doing that it was abnormal behavior. We've done it for so long now that it's normal. We made it a legal device influenced by our government at some point. The current state of the evolution of marriage is that one of the last groups of people to whom the institution is denied want the same legal protection of property that the government affords others.

Get government out of the marriage business and this isn't an issue any more. It's not gay marriage (paring / mating) that's abnormal, it's government intervention in pairing / mating that's abnormal.

Owned by Remi #?

[vortexring 0]

Well, why don't you explain your interpretation of the word normal for me?

I've a recent reply on this page to Bill, several posts above this one, where I've made my viewpoint as clear as I can. Which part of it don't you understand? My meaning of the word normal? It's just your normal meaning of the word normal.

'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.'