[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

None. Same as yours apparently.

My point is clear. The government should not discriminate based on prejudice. Yours seems to be that religious extremists should be free to discriminate against anyone they don't like, and should be free to use the government to do it.

[Graviton]

I'd give my left penis to be normal

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Excellent rebuttals. About what I expected, hinging as it does on your premise that, just because a majority thinks it's okay to discriminate, it is.

I'd give more if I had something more substantive to work against.

Also, if the majority thinks it's okay to discriminate against two unequal things, it normally IS and generally is legal. We discriminate every day as part of our day. What we eat, what we wear, who are friends are, who we hire if we supervise others, were we live. Discrimination is all around us. It's only when the discrimination is irrational or when we negatively discriminate against two equal things that problems arise, IMO.

I don't know how old you are, but if you're younger than me (60), you'll more than likely see gay marriage made legal within the next two decades, and it will be because it's wrong to discriminate against a minority group that harms no one, despite your irrational fears.

A. It has nothing to do with fear.
B. You're just as likely to see a constitutional amendment protecting tradition marriage. Civil unions, I'll give you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Your contortions are painful to watch. You think that marriage's benefit to society is the production of offspring, and yet you are not interested in whether those marriages produce offspring, unless they are gay?

No. I think that marriage's benefit to society is it's action as an affirmative action for men and women who come together in long term unions which normally result in the production of offspring, to stay together and maintain their responsibility to raise their offspring with positive and loving opposite sex blood related role models.

And gay couples who adopt - their children do not deserve the protections afforded to the children of straight couples? Of course not... because... their parents choices of partners are offensive to you.

What protections do people who adopt children not get, especially with the advent of civil unions? It has nothing to do with my emotions, sorry. It has everything to do with my insistence on overcoming emotion and looking at things logically. There's a reason why things have been done for quite some time. It wasn't designed to hurt someone's feelings.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, the better example would be if the government recognized baptism, but only from one church. All other churches were put in the category of 'once having gone swimming'.

Totally disagree with your logic. It makes no sense. If we were talking about two equal entities, then maybe you'd have a point. We aren't.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

My point is clear. The government should not discriminate based on prejudice. Yours seems to be that religious extremists should be free to discriminate against anyone they don't like, and should be free to use the government to do it.

It has nothing to do with religion. I'm sorry that your brain refuses to see the logical differences between what I've said and your insistence (likely do to your own religious prejudice) that my argument is religion based.

There's really nothing left to debate with you if you aren't capable of making a better argument given the facts.

[Graviton]

I haven't seen one good reason why gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same rights as us heterosexual couples.

They have civil partnerships here in the UK, but everyone colloquially calls them marriages. It can only be a matter of time before they officially call it a marriage. I'd imagine that same thing will happen in the US eventually.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I haven't seen one good reason why gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same rights as us heterosexual couples.

They have civil partnerships here in the UK, but everyone colloquially calls them marriages. It can only be a matter of time before they officially call it a marriage. I'd imagine that same thing will happen in the US eventually.

Ah, but the anti-gay marriage crowd will say that marriage isn't a "right". Though, I'd like to know what it is, then. If only people in a religion could be "married", I might be inclined to agree, but since we have totally non-religious people having totally non-religious weddings, obtaining a marriage license has nothing more to do with religion than obtaining a drivers license does.

So what if religions came up with the concept first?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd give more if I had something more substantive to work against.

Also, if the majority thinks it's okay to discriminate against two unequal things, it normally IS and generally is legal. We discriminate every day as part of our day. What we eat, what we wear, who are friends are, who we hire if we supervise others, were we live. Discrimination is all around us. It's only when the discrimination is irrational or when we negatively discriminate against two equal things that problems arise, IMO.



A. It has nothing to do with fear.
B. You're just as likely to see a constitutional amendment protecting tradition marriage. Civil unions, I'll give you.

If your point of discrimination between two unequal things were valid you would be correct. But it is not valid. Two consenting adults entering into a loving caring relationship are equal, whether they're gay or straight.

As to your claim that it has nothing to do with fear; that's laughable at best. "Religious" leaders all over this country have voiced their fears of what would allegedly happen if gays were allowed to marry, and how gays allegedly have an "agenda" to convert others to their "lifestyle" of "perversion, blah, blah, blah." Of course there is no such agenda, other than to live the same happy, productive lifestyle that straights live, but that doesn't play well with bigots and haters, so the truth is conveniently not told. If there were no fear, there would be no reason for the opposition, as it wouldn't matter to the bigots and haters what other people did, but it does, because they choose to be lied to and deceived, to fit their immovable preconceived, closed minded beliefs. I heard a great example of that this morning on the radio, during a discussion on gay marriage. A 62 year old woman made the comment that "you've got all these young kids today saying that they're bisexual. I don't want that for our kids." She's basing her fears on hysteria, rather than facts; all these "young kids" aren't bisexual, yet, through careful manipulation and distortion of the truth by fear mongering "religious" leaders, an image is implanted that gullible people consume because its easier than doing research to find out the truth. For you to claim that fear is not a factor either shows the intellectual dishonesty and invalidity of your argument or displays your gullibility and malleability. Fear of the different and the unknown is the foundation of all movements against change; it's incredible that you would say otherwise.

It's also very generous and magnanimous of you to concede civil unions. The issue with civil unions is that a couple's union may still not be recognized outside of a jurisdiction other than the state it was formed in, which basically invalidates many of the same protections that others enjoy just because they're married, and that's still not equality, which of course you're not in favor of. But, again, that's fine; we've moved past our cave man days, when men clubbed the food and women cooked it, and we'll progress past this issue as well. At least most of us will; some hang on to the past, taking their misery with them.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What protections do people who adopt children not get, especially with the advent of civil unions?

If you really don't know, then I am astounded to be having this conversation, since you obviously have not spent any time familiarising yourself with the issues. Let's start with the fact that civil union protections are not valid outside the state they are issued in, for one. There are many, many others. I suggest you do a little research.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think as adults we have to be prepared for harsh truths handed ungently.

Well, if that is what you are trying to do, then I guess I understand your tactic.

I'm more interested in the truth being heard and understood. I have no need to make it worse than it already is.

Of course the point I'm trying to make is that the truth is getting lost in your presentation. That this doesn't bother you seems to indicate you think preparing people for getting harsh truths rammed down their throat has a higher priority than people actually knowing the truth.

Even if that is not the case, the most basic understanding of human psychology should tell you that you are in fact accomplishing neither.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I haven't seen one good reason why gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same rights as us heterosexual couples.

Then there's 2 questions you need to ask yourself:

1. It is the norm for both entities, after engaging in a long-term (and sometimes short term) union to reproduce? Yes or no.

2. Is the welfare of children something that the government should take an interest in? Yes or no.

If you answered no to the first questions and yes to the second, then you have your answer. There is no societal interest in simply acknowledging the emotions of people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

If your point of discrimination between two unequal things were valid you would be correct. But it is not valid. Two consenting adults entering into a loving caring relationship are equal, whether they're gay or straight.

If simply being in a "loving caring relationship" was all that marriage entails, you'd have a point. But it isn't and you don't.

As to your claim that it has nothing to do with fear; that's laughable at best. "Religious" leaders all over this country have voiced their fears of what would allegedly....

I'll stop you right there so you won't continue to embarrass yourself with continued public displays of your religious bigotry. Me, myself...I'm not all that religious and I've not mentioned religion as an argument in this topic. You can't seem to keep from veering into the topic which makes obvious your own irrational fear.

Physcian....heal thyself.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If you really don't know, then I am astounded to be having this conversation, since you obviously have not spent any time familiarising yourself with the issues. Let's start with the fact that civil union protections are not valid outside the state they are issued in, for one. There are many, many others. I suggest you do a little research.

If a parent adopts a child, then have the same protections as if the child was born to them.

That's my point.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, if that is what you are trying to do, then I guess I understand your tactic.

I'm more interested in the truth being heard and understood. I have no need to make it worse than it already is.

Of course the point I'm trying to make is that the truth is getting lost in your presentation. That this doesn't bother you seems to indicate you think preparing people for getting harsh truths rammed down their throat has a higher priority than people actually knowing the truth.

That's not my intent or goal, but I understand what your saying. If "truth" is what is sought, then emotion shouldn't play a part. Logic and reason should be the deciding factors. Emotion is a bias. When you try to find truth through a biased lense, things end up distorted. There's enough people here who are more than happy to distort that a little direct truth isn't going to hurt.

But...I do see your point and will take it in consideration.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

1. It is the norm for both entities, after engaging in a long-term (and sometimes short term) union to reproduce? Yes or no.

2. Is the welfare of children something that the government should take an interest in? Yes or no.

Doesn't it follow from this line of reasoning that some of the children from hetero couples would be "unwanted," but that none of the children from homo couples would be? That suggests that childrens' "welfare" is served more by homo marriage than without it.

Either way, you can't "reason out" what's better for child welfare. The only way to make that claim is to actually go out and measure the welfare of children in each situation, and see what the data say...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then there's 2 questions you need to ask yourself:

1. It is the norm for both entities, after engaging in a long-term (and sometimes short term) union to reproduce? Yes or no.

No. Many couples, including heterosexual ones, have no intention of of ever reproducing. Or are you proposing to require all couples to commit to reproducing before they can be granted the right to marry?

2. Is the welfare of children something that the government should take an interest in? Yes or no.

How is the welfare of children relevant to the issue of same-sex marriage?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If simply being in a "loving caring relationship" was all that marriage entails, you'd have a point. But it isn't and you don't.



I'll stop you right there so you won't continue to embarrass yourself with continued public displays of your religious bigotry. Me, myself...I'm not all that religious and I've not mentioned religion as an argument in this topic. You can't seem to keep from veering into the topic which makes obvious your own irrational fear.

Physcian....heal thyself.

Nothing changes the fact that two people who are consenting adults and want to engage in a relationship, and have all the same rights and benefits of a married couple, should need yours, or anyone else's, approval, and that day will come.

I wasn't referring to you specifically concerning the religion issue, but it was a nice attempt on your part to spin it to suit you. I also don't have an irrational fear of religion, as those who want to believe in a superior being don't threaten me, unlike consenting homosexual adults quite obviously threaten you. You're just one of those people who have to stick their nose in other peoples' business, deluding yourself into thinking that your beliefs are rational. Have a nice life, seriously.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then there's 2 questions you need to ask yourself:

1. It is the norm for both entities, after engaging in a long-term (and sometimes short term) union to reproduce? Yes or no.

Choosing to have children or to not have children are both normal choices for "entities" engaged in a "union" of indiscriminate length. Which of those two choices are "the norm" or not, I really have no idea, but I'd guess that "entities" make "unions" more often than they make 'reproductive unions'.

2. Is the welfare of children something that the government should take an interest in? Yes or no.

Yes. Which is why homosexual couples should be allowed the opportunity to get married, adopt children and raise them in a happy loving family. Just like us privileged heterosexual couples can.

In the UK (where I live) this inequality issue is currently being addressed. 'Gay weddings' are now legal and it is illegal for adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples. I would bet money on the fact that a great republic like the US, one which extols the virtues of freedom and equality, will eventually do the same.

If you answered no to the first questions and yes to the second, then you have your answer. There is no societal interest in simply acknowledging the emotions of people.

Really? I'm not sure about that, but I am sure that equality is of societal interest and that is the most important issue.

Like I said before, I have heard no good reason why homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as us heterosexual couples. Not one.

[stupendousman]

I'm swamped with work right now, so I'll use this post to save some time refute the general "but some don't choose to have kids" rebuttal that everyone seems to be making.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No. Many couples, including heterosexual ones, have no intention of of ever reproducing.

...and yet quite often times they end up doing so regardless. Even people who THOUGHT they were infertile. I married and didn't intend on immediately reproducing but...GUESS WHAT? My wife got pregnant unintentionally. Reproduction, wanted or not, is the norm for men and women who join together in long term unions. Unless you plan on having a sexless marriage.

I think it's pretty much a no brainer that the optimum scenario for men and women who end up reproducing (which most do - by choice or not) is for them to raise their blood related children together in a loving and secure home. That's not to say that other options wouldn't work. It's just that it's always a good reason to affirm the optimum by offering incentive. In this case, an affirmative action in the acknowledgement of marriage. Since the scenario above would NEVER apply to same sex couples...it just doesn't apply.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

in a loving and secure home.

Gay homes are loveless and unsecure?

[Graviton]

You could of course re-frame the 'not normal argument':

"There are tonnes more Chinese people than Americans. China is also incredibly older than America. Obviously the norm is to be Chinese.

Therefore, Americans are not normal and should not be allowed to get married!"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm swamped with work right now, so I'll use this post to save some time refute the general "but some don't choose to have kids" rebuttal that everyone seems to be making.



...and yet quite often times they end up doing so regardless. Even people who THOUGHT they were infertile. I married and didn't intend on immediately reproducing but...GUESS WHAT? My wife got pregnant unintentionally. Reproduction, wanted or not, is the norm for men and women who join together in long term unions. Unless you plan on having a sexless marriage.

I think it's pretty much a no brainer that the optimum scenario for men and women who end up reproducing (which most do - by choice or not) is for them to raise their blood related children together in a loving and secure home. That's not to say that other options wouldn't work. It's just that it's always a good reason to affirm the optimum by offering incentive. In this case, an affirmative action in the acknowledgement of marriage. Since the scenario above would NEVER apply to same sex couples...it just doesn't apply.

I work with a women who's been married for 25 years. She and her husband have no children, nor any desire to do so. They've both had surgery to eliminate the possibility that they might have children. Is it "normal" to alter one's body to render themselves sterile? Perhaps we should ban vasectomies?

As for married couples who have no desire for children, and accidentally get pregnant ... what often happens to those children? I'm certain there are many same-sex couples willing to adopt children not wanted by their "blood" parents.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I think it's pretty much a no brainer that the optimum scenario for men and women who end up reproducing (which most do - by choice or not) is for them to raise their blood related children together in a loving and secure home. That's not to say that other options wouldn't work. It's just that it's always a good reason to affirm the optimum by offering incentive. In this case, an affirmative action in the acknowledgement of marriage. Since the scenario above would NEVER apply to same sex couples...it just doesn't apply.

1. Two people being married does not guarantee a loving and secure home.
2. Marriage is not the optimum solution. Think communes. All adults being ‘parents’ to all children is preferable in many ways.
3. Pro‑marriage incentives discriminate against singles.
4. The planet is overpopulated; this calls for anti‑conception incentives.
5. In conclusion, all financial benefits awarded to married couples and breeders should be scrapped in the interest of humanity's future.

Being married does not make you a hero.
Being a parent does not make you a hero.
People ought to quit acting as if either entitled them to benefits.

[Uncle Skeleton]

And what's your alternative, stup? These people who wish to be gay-married, would you have them pretend to be straight and engage in a loveless faux straight marriage, raising the unintended children that result in a loveless lie-filled childhood? Or would you want the would-be gay-marriers to become so depressed that they commit suicide, so you don't have to think about them anymore?

Just trying to understand that noggin of yours...

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Show me one gay person who has spread as much hate at any religious evangelist.

If anything God should be mad at the people spreading hate in his name when all gays are doing is LOVING his fellow man.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

1. Two people being married does not guarantee a loving and secure home.

45% of all married Christians can tell you that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Show me one gay person who has spread as much hate at any religious evangelist.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Like I said before, I have heard no good reason why homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as us heterosexual couples. Not one.

There aren't any, but some people can't (won't) see anything that doesn't fit in their narrow worldview, so they'll spend inordinate amounts of energy and time "rationalizing" what they "know" to be "logic" and "true." They just won't grasp that theirs isn't the only valid view, to the point that they actually delude themselves into believing that society will be harmed by homosexuals. It's no different than those who thought blacks, Chinese, Native Americans, etc., etc., are inferior (actually, many still hold these beliefs); they need to find a way to to rationalize their views, as the thought of themselves being wrong would be utterly unbearable. Children have been, and still are being, disowned by their families over this issue, and people get murdered for being gay; such is the self loathing and hate of homophobia.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Unless you plan on having a sexless marriage.

And in this case, your marriage shouldn't count, right?

Come on, this is a really stupid argument.

[peeb]

Divorce should be illegal, and marriages should be annulled if they don't have children within 3 years. Adoption should be banned.

[Wiskedjak]

Also, before being allowed to marry, potential spouses should undergo extensive screening to ensure they will be compatible and provide an optimum home for the children they must have.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

45% of all married Christians can tell you that.

Distaste for homosexuality transcends Christianity. So does divorce. This is not a debate between Christians and gays, this is a debate on to what extent our government should govern. As a Christian, I feel the government is attempting to govern issues it should not while not governing the issues it should.

If gays would like to join the ranks of the penalized married, I welcome them into the fold. There's no reason they shouldn't have the same rights as straights. God knows they'll be paying for it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Distaste for homosexuality transcends Christianity. So does divorce. This is not a debate between Christians and gays, this is a debate on to what extent our government should govern. As a Christian, I feel the government is attempting to govern issues it should not while not governing the issues it should.

If gays would like to join the ranks of the penalized married, I welcome them into the fold. There's no reason they shouldn't have the same rights as straights. God knows they'll be paying for it.

As usual, a very balanced opinion on the matter.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If gays would like to join the ranks of the penalized married, I welcome them into the fold. There's no reason they shouldn't have the same rights as straights. God knows they'll be paying for it.

Damn, I thought they were already PENALIZED. Okay, okay lesbians are left out.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Gay homes are loveless and unsecure?

Did I say that?

[stupendousman]

Okay...to quickly rebut:

I didn't say it was not possible for there to be "loving and secure" home without blood related parents, nor did I say that having them guaranteed it. I said that the optimum goal was for such a senario to exist.

Also, as with ANY standard, you are going to find exceptions to the rule. Just like you'll find wealthy minorities who take advantage of racial affirmative action because they generally fit the category deemed desirable for such a program. As long as the entity in question could generally appear to fit the category in question (in this case, a man and a women who could find themselves with child or possibly could act as a surrogate for other children not having a stable and loving mother/father in-home role model), they are seldom further means tested. I see no reason this should be the exception to the general rule.

I'd prefer for laws and rules to be rational and logical. Not based on emotion or how they make me feel. Emotion is seldom the standard to which fairness is extruded. A person doesn't have a right to something just because they FEEL they should. If you want equality, you first have to have EQUAL things. This isn't the case here.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did I say that?

What is the point of mentioning heterosexual homes are loving and secure if homosexual ones are too?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you answered no to the first questions and yes to the second, then you have your answer. There is no societal interest in simply acknowledging the emotions of people.

I'm not going to try to argue that society has an interest in recognizing homosexual unions because of their reproductive benefits, and I have no ****ing idea why people are trying.

It seems this brings us back around to the contractual obligation aspects of marriage. Doesn't society have an interest in recognizing those?

Does not our society at least pay lip service to the notion that the need and desire for those contractual obligations flow out of our emotions?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

What is the point of mentioning heterosexual homes are loving and secure if homosexual ones are too?

I didn't specify "heterosexual" homes. If you want, you can quote me if you believe I did.

[peeb]

Given the overwhelming overpopulation, I think that the state should step in to reward gay unions, and penalize straight people for adding to the already too high population.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Given the overwhelming overpopulation, I think that the state should step in to reward gay unions, and penalize straight people for adding to the already too high population.

Well, there are very good reasons why China is over-populated, but something tells me you weren't talking about China. Have you ever driven cross-country? No? You may want to give it a shot. I think it'd put your "overwhelming overpopulation" concerns substantially to rest.

C'mon peeb, has someone put you up to posting here? This was all very 'Monique-esque' of you. No... scratch that, she's actually made some good points from time to time.

[peeb]

I'm talking about the planet in general - I think we could do with stabilizing at about a quarter of the current world population. Since people in the US consume about 10 times as many resources as those in China, the US is a good place to start, but China obviously has very similar issues. Are you really telling me you don't think the planet has a population issue? Let me be clear here, I am talking about voluntarily rewarding people who don't reproduce, not removing anyone's right to, or killing people, or anything like that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I am talking about voluntarily rewarding people who don't reproduce

I think all the people who have done this aren't around any more.

I wonder why...



IOW, not reproducing is a lousy survival tactic.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think all the people who have done this aren't around any more.

I wonder why...



IOW, not reproducing is a lousy survival tactic.

Which people are you talking about? As far as I can see, having a population larger than the carrying capacity of your planet is a lousy survival tactic. I'm not talking about not reproducing at all, I'm just talking about stabilizing the population of the planet at about a quarter of the current level.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Which people are you talking about? As far as I can see, having a population larger than the carrying capacity of your planet is a lousy survival tactic. I'm not talking about not reproducing at all, I'm just talking about stabilizing the population of the planet at about a quarter of the current level.

You're killing me.

[peeb]

Why is avoiding ecological collapse funny?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Are you really telling me you don't think the planet has a population issue?

Yes that's absolutely what I'm telling you. There is positively no population issue on our planet. Period.
- people collect in clusters for socio-economic reasons in exchanging goods and services, and to enjoy the benefits of the civil apparatus.
- people inhabit less than 3% of the earth's land surface.
- If you granted 1,250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. (7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person.) The population density of this imaginary city would be less than the Bronx.
- World population growth is actually in decline. Per UN; the 79 countries that comprise 40% of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 which is effectively zero. The annual rate of change in world population fell from 2% in 1965-70 to less than 1.5% in 1990-95.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Why is avoiding ecological collapse funny?

The only impending collapse here is your rationale.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only impending collapse here is your rationale.

So you don't believe that the earth has a finite carrying capacity? Which part of what I am saying is giving you problems?