Debates
07 Jun 06
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27So what do you want gays to do?
it isn't about sex, it's about preserving marriage (between a man and a woman) since that is best for society and raising children. The liberal ideology of "anything goes" leads to less marriage, more co-habitation, less committment, etc.....and the children are worse off.
Marry a straight and have children? How strong would that marriage be?
If you accept that most gays are nmot going to get into a straight marriage and have children anyway, then it doesn't matter what they do.
If the benfits of marriage are supposed to be about raising families, then childless married couples should not get the benefits of marriage. Childless straight married couples must be as bad for society as childless gay married couples.
07 Jun 06
Anytime a politician, panders to religion and threatens to change our Constitution, it makes me nervous.
Why should your religious morals influence my right to decide with whom I can date or marry? Or any other decision I might make in life?
I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt someone else (unless they want to be hurt.) Kill yourself, just don't fall on me or leave me a mess to clean up. Screw who you want, just don't create a burden on the welfare system. Surf all the porn you care to, just don't go molesting kids. etc, etc.
Some zealots would say this country was based upon christianity, but our forefathers specifically said it should not be. Thus, concepts like separation of church and state, were born.
What we have today is a new Vatican empire. Hopefully it won't take too many generations to turn it around to a more balanced state.
If people like Prez Bush were really morally concerned, profit and power would hardly be such a huge part of his lifestyle. (Of course, Bush isn't really anything more than a puppet to his VP influences. Cheney's net worth is estimated at three times that of Bush. That should tell ya something.)
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by aging blitzeryour missing the point. Putting no standards on marriage de-values it. Marriage is important as a society's stabalizer; so to speak. If you devalue the institution of marriage the un-intended consequences are great.
So what do you want gays to do?
Marry a straight and have children? How strong would that marriage be?
If you accept that most gays are nmot going to get into a straight marriage and have children anyway, then it doesn't matter what they do.
If the benfits of marriage are supposed to be about raising families, then childless married couples sho ...[text shortened]... Childless straight married couples must be as bad for society as childless gay married couples.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27Homosexual marriage doesn't constitute a threat to heterosexual marriage. There is no evidence, absolutely none, that allowing homosexuals to marry is causally responsible for declining rates of heterosexual marriage. Please refer to the following:
it isn't about sex, it's about preserving marriage (between a man and a woman) since that is best for society and raising children. The liberal ideology of "anything goes" leads to less marriage, more co-habitation, less committment, etc.....and the children are worse off. Nobody cares what homosexuals do in their own homes but to say they deserve the "legal" right to be married is where the arguement is.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
I'm not sure what liberal ideology of "anything goes" you're referring to, but that certainly isn't a presupposition of those advocating for homosexual marriage, nor does anything about allowing homosexuals to marry entail that "anything goes". This is just ideological claptrap on your part.
If you want to find the highest divorce rates in the U.S., you won't find them in predominately liberal states. You'll find them in those deep red states. Please refer to the following article:
http://www.divorcereform.org/spec.html
So, not only have you failed to provide any evidence for these empirical claims you're making, but the actual evidence weighs against those claims. But, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Reality has a well known liberal bias".
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that there ought be no restrictions on marriage. Homosexuals and those that support civil rights are claiming that there ought not be one particular restriction on marriage.
sure, but when looking at the issue you have to look at the big (general) effect and its un-intended consequences, not just at one specific example. The fact is where there are no restrictions on marriage marriage rates have gone down. I'm all for civil unions but I believe the privledge of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27This is merely a descriptive claim; it entails nothing about what standards ought to be in place for marriage. Further, the discussion here is about homosexual marriage, not polygamy. So, you'd do well not to sully the waters with your non-sequiturs.
There are standards to get a marriage license...i can't marry 3 woman for example
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672no standards on marriage devalues it more. the divorce rate is a factor of poor choice and or other bad decisions. That will never change. To remove standards on who can marry would put much less value on marriage itself.
I have a question for you. Which problem do you think de-values marriage more - gay people who want to get married or the 50% of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce?
You never answered my question: In "your" world it would be legal for me to marry my Oak tree. Correct? Or maybe i can marry every person on my street and they can all participate in my health plan right? the point is if you give one group (homosexuals) the right to marry then you have to give every other alternative group the same rights.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by bbarrim sorry you don't understand, the point is if you give homosexuals the right you have to give polygamists the same rights (equal treatment).
This is merely a descriptive claim; it entails nothing about what standards ought to be in place for marriage. Further, the discussion here is about homosexual marriage, not polygamy. So, you'd do well not to sully the waters with your non-sequiturs.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27No, the point is that this is false. Here's a counterexample:
im sorry you don't understand, the point is if you give homosexuals the right you have to give polygamists the same rights (equal treatment).
State A grants homosexuals the right to marry.
State A does not grant sets of persons with more than two members the right to marry.
See, easy! Now, if you want to claim that the reasons homosexuals have provided in support of marriage equality also apply to polygamous relationships, then you'll have to argue for that. Merely asserting something like this isn't sufficient to make it true. You claim that there is a slippery slope, then justify your claim.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27Still no argument, merely assertions. Why should any of us take seriously any of these claims of yours?
no standards on marriage devalues it more. the divorce rate is a factor of poor choice and or other bad decisions. That will never change. To remove standards on who can marry would put much less value on marriage itself.
You never answered my question: In "your" world it would be legal for me to marry my Oak tree. Correct? Or maybe i can marry eve ...[text shortened]... xuals) the right to marry then you have to give every other alternative group the same rights.