When people say gay marriage isn't natural...

[cadet]

...i believe this is what they mean.

I was discusing with my biologist friend my political views about gay marraige, and i stumbled upon a nice little explanation.

In the animal kingdom, alot of animals don't mate for life, but some do. The ones that do, have children that can't take care of themselves, and require assistance from parents.
Hence, in nature, the only reason for some sort of "marriage" is so the species can continue on in it's growth. It's all for the kids.

So when we put a man and a woman together, they are there to take care of/have children, and love eachother. Teach morals to the kids, and get them to the point where they can go out by themselves.

and even when you take into account that some animals do have gay activities, they don't stay together for life.

When a guy and guy get together, (or girl and girl) they can't have kids. the entire reason for being together for life has lost it's meaning. They can't keep a race going, can't contribute to life, and have noone to teach. There is literly no point in gays getting together with this reasoning.

Thus, marriage between a man and a woman is natural.

[Anton Chigurh]

And yet.... Humans are the only species that let's the kids come back to the nest....

[fj1200]

Hence, in nature, the only reason for some sort of "marriage" is so the species can continue on in it's growth. It's all for the kids.

So when we put a man and a woman together, they are there to take care of/have children, and love eachother. Teach morals to the kids, and get them to the point where they can go out by themselves.

and even when you take into account that some animals do have gay activities, they don't stay together for life.

When a guy and guy get together, (or girl and girl) they can't have kids. the entire reason for being together for life has lost it's meaning. They can't keep a race going, can't contribute to life, and have noone to teach. There is literly no point in gays getting together with this reasoning.

Your logical support for gay marriage has been noted. Gays have kids.

[cadet]

Your logical support for gay marriage has been noted. Gays have kids.

They, uh... can't make kids.
let me demonstrate.
3829
Yup, don't see how that's possible.

[fj1200]

They, uh... can't make kids.
let me demonstrate.
3829
Yup, don't see how that's possible.

You need to get out of your sheltered world. I said gays "have" kids. Come down here and I'll show you multiple examples in my neighborhood.

[Noir]

...by the same logic, is marrying a woman who you know is barren, just as unnatural?

[fj1200]

...by the same logic, is marrying a woman who you know is barren, just as unnatural?

Of course not. Because it's not icky... :poke: It also doesn't upset the status quo of government preferencing what I like over what I do not.

[Nukeman]

You need to get out of your sheltered world. I said gays "have" kids. Come down here and I'll show you multiple examples in my neighborhood.Your argument is WRONG.... Gays do not procreate TOGETHER. They may adopt or go for artificial insemination but those are NOT natural in nature.. I think thats the point you are missing....

2 gay women can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!!!!! 2 gay men can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!! PERIOD!! To suggest otherwise is failing in basic physiology/anatomy!!!!!

[fj1200]

Your argument is WRONG.... Gays do not procreate TOGETHER. They may adopt or go for artificial insemination but those are NOT natural in nature.. I think thats the point you are missing....

2 gay women can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!!!!! 2 gay men can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!! PERIOD!! To suggest otherwise is failing in basic physiology/anatomy!!!!!

Unfortunately for you though that's not my argument. Gays have kids, according to the OP parents are there for the kids, ergo we should not discriminate against couples that have kids. The conclusion presented does not match the premise.

[jimnyc]

Yes, gays can adopt, or use various other methods to have children. I won't debate that. But it's not "natural". Maybe someday it may be considered the norm, but scientifically speaking based on the way our bodies are designed, it will never be natural.

[fj1200]

Yes, gays can adopt, or use various other methods to have children. I won't debate that. But it's not "natural". Maybe someday it may be considered the norm, but scientifically speaking based on the way our bodies are designed, it will never be natural.

Statements that no one, as of yet, is disputing. "Marriage" is a man-made institution and should not be included in discussions of "natural."

[Noir]

Your argument is WRONG.... Gays do not procreate TOGETHER. They may adopt or go for artificial insemination but those are NOT natural in nature.. I think thats the point you are missing....

2 gay women can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!!!!! 2 gay men can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!! PERIOD!! To suggest otherwise is failing in basic physiology/anatomy!!!!!

A hetrosexual man and a barren hetrosexual woman can NOT make a baby TOGETHER.
Sure they can adopt or go for artificial insemination, but those are NOT natural...

[cadet]

Statements that no one, as of yet, is disputing. "Marriage" is a man-made institution and should not be included in discussions of "natural."

Did you read my first post? I discussed that marriage is natural. ish.
The animals mate for life to take care of their young. Making some sort of natural marriage.

[fj1200]

Did you read my first post? I discussed that marriage is natural. ish.
The animals mate for life to take care of their young. Making some sort of natural marriage.

Clearly I did, it is full of holes. Mating is natural; marriage, especially in the terms of the day, is not. It is a man-made creature that has been adopted by government to grant a multitude of benefits that are available to those that meet the state definition of marriage.

I thought you were a small government kind of guy.

[revelarts]

Cadet makes some good points on the biological level which makes sense.
But the problem is God's opinion is not taken seriously.

Frankly, Since it's not, people can come up with so-called justifications for anything, including things like killing babies.

the idea of people marrying the dead or animals or furniture, I'm sure could be defended by some set of reasons. At the very least the question "WHY NOT?" could be held out to block any rational prohibitions.


Judges 17:6
"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Proverbs 30:12
"There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness."

[fj1200]

But the problem is God's opinion is not taken seriously.

This isn't about God, it's about nature.


The ones that do, have children that can't take care of themselves, and require assistance from parents.

Grizzly bears don't mate for life or even the adolescence of their offspring. In fact the mother needs to protect it from other males so they don't get killed.


When a guy and guy get together, (or girl and girl) they can't have kids. the entire reason for being together for life has lost it's meaning.

One would also have to accept your premise that the perpetuation of the species is the entire reason for being (together).

[revelarts]

This isn't about God, it's about nature.




Just as i said, God's not taken seriously.
You've put what you call nature above God.
Didn't God make nature?
And Cadet has already pointed out that nature clearly favors union for the opposite sexes. Your arguing from exceptions not the overarching reality of animals or mankind.


And do we get our morals from nature or somewhere else?

[revelarts]

One would also have to accept your premise that the perpetuation of the species is the entire reason for being (together).

Not entire, but 1 important primary.

[fj1200]

Just as i said, God's not taken seriously.
You've put what you call nature above God.
Didn't God make nature?
And Cadet has already pointed out that nature clearly favors union for the opposite sexes. Your arguing from exceptions not the overarching reality of animals or mankind.


And do we get our morals from nature or somewhere else?

Correction; I did not inject nature into the discussion. And cadet made a presumption that doesn't bear out while at the same time rejecting examples of nature that do not suit his argument.

There is also no basis in our society for interjecting what you deem important over others.


Not entire, but 1 important primary.

Do you really expect the entire species to die out if gay marriage is allowed?

[revelarts]

There is also no basis in our society for interjecting what you deem important over others.

Basis?
There's long history of not condoning it on moral and cultural ground derived from Christian heritage.
Those theme are still in the cultural air and law and not are not just personal.

But there's no basis for the State to sanction the union in the name of all the people. Becuase some feel like interjecting what you deem important over others.



Do you really expect the entire species to die out if gay marriage is allowed?

Do you really expect all homosexuals to die if they don't have gay marriage approved by the sate?

[Thunderknuckles]

The plain and simple truth is this:
Neither evolution nor "God" intended for human beings to be homosexual for obvious reasons.
Thus, homosexuality is an aberration of nature's or God's intention either way you look at it.
Does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? I'm against it personally but if Caesar wants it, then I'll render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

[Noir]

Just as i said, God's not taken seriously.

By which you mean your god is not taken seriously.

[revelarts]

By which you mean your god is not taken seriously.


Well, really He's everybody's God even if they are not aware of it or acknowledge it.

[fj1200]

Basis?
There's long history of not condoning it on moral and cultural ground derived from Christian heritage.
Those theme are still in the cultural air and law and not are not just personal.

Not all accept what you deem to be Christian heritage.


But there's no basis for the State to sanction the union in the name of all the people. Becuase some feel like interjecting what you deem important over others.

What exactly am I interjecting? I don't think the State should sanction interpersonal relationships.


Do you really expect all homosexuals to die if they don't have gay marriage approved by the sate?

Of course not but that's not even close to the point is it?

[fj1200]

The plain and simple truth is...

Merely an opinion.

[Noir]

Well, really He's everybody's God even if they are not aware of it or acknowledge it.

In your opinion, some other guy who believes in a god that allows you to have as many wives as you want would have the same basis of argument as you.

[Thunderknuckles]

Merely an opinion.
I think it's a little better than an opinion. It defies logic to say evolution intended humans to be homosexual. Not only would we have never made it past the first generation, it offers no advantage. If anything other than heterosexuality was intended, we would probably be hermaphroditic.

[fj1200]

I think it's a little better than an opinion. It defies logic to say evolution intended humans to be homosexual. Not only would we have never made it past the first generation, it offers no advantage. If anything other than heterosexuality was intended, we would probably be hermaphroditic.

It defies logic to say that evolution intended humans to be entirely homosexual.

[revelarts]

In your opinion, some other guy who believes in a god that allows you to have as many wives as you want would have the same basis of argument as you.

Opinion on the thread topic is what this all comes down to then as well isn't it. -as i said in my 1st post-

It appears there are not enough agreed upon facts to convince any side what's right (in everyone's own eyes - not God's) here.

Cadet bases it on Nature folks dispute that,
I base it on God, nature and history folks dispute that.

But your opinion should somehow prevail based on what?
I think any defense you post can be disputed as well, 'They are born that way'... no proof of that, just speculation. 'It's a right', ... it's not a right that the state acknowledge or approve any marriages. 'People want it' ... a lot of people don't want it, and anyway people want a lot of stuff... so what.

so whos opinion has more facts to back it up? If it were decided there alone it be easy. but folks won't let facts get in the way of this emotion charged issue.

[fj1200]

Opinion on the thread topic is what this all comes down to then as well isn't it. -as i said in my 1st post-

It appears there are not enough agreed upon facts to convince any side what's right (in everyone's own eyes - not God's) here.

Cadet bases it on Nature folks dispute that,
I base it on God, nature and history folks dispute that.

Not really. Both of those opinions boil down to using the power of government to sanction your preference over those you disagree with. I thought this board was overflowing with small-government folks.

[gabosaurus]

When a guy and guy get together, (or girl and girl) they can't have kids. the entire reason for being together for life has lost it's meaning. They can't keep a race going, can't contribute to life, and have noone to teach. There is literly no point in gays getting together with this reasoning.


Wow, that's a blanket slap in the face for a lot of people.
What you are saying is that couples who decide not to have children, or who are unable to have children, make zero contribution to society and might as well not even exist.
What about those of us who have chosen to adopt a child? Are we not contributing to life? Do we have no one to teach?

Cadet, I like you. I think you are a smart person who contributes a lot to discussion (unlike many other of the new members). But you need to think about what you are saying sometimes.

[jimnyc]

Wow, that's a blanket slap in the face for a lot of people.

Coming from you, who makes blanket statements about the entire community of DP on a daily basis, that is laughable.

[jimnyc]

(unlike many other of the new members).

Why do you feel the need to continually call out the "new members"? Your issue with them is their opinion, or coloring of posts. But you disrupt threads and flame about them. Which is worse and which is worse for the board reading the threads?

[gabosaurus]

Why do you feel the need to continually call out the "new members"? Your issue with them is their opinion, or coloring of posts. But you disrupt threads and flame about them. Which is worse and which is worse for the board reading the threads?

Can we restrict discussion to this thread please? Tell me your opinion of the topic at hand.

Otherwise, I call out new members because they need to be called out. I don't think either of us is worse.

[revelarts]

Not really. Both of those opinions boil down to using the power of government to sanction your preference over those you disagree with. I thought this board was overflowing with small-government folks.

Frankly FJ,
If the state got out of all marriage that'd be fine with me.
Leave marriage to the Churches.

How's that work for ya?

[fj1200]

Frankly FJ,
If the state got out of all marriage that'd be fine with me.
Leave marriage to the Churches.

How's that work for ya?

Just fine, remove all references to marriage from the Federal (especially) code and any benefits attached. We've got enough government problems that we need to argue about this.

[cadet]

Wow, that's a blanket slap in the face for a lot of people.
What you are saying is that couples who decide not to have children, or who are unable to have children, make zero contribution to society and might as well not even exist.
What about those of us who have chosen to adopt a child? Are we not contributing to life? Do we have no one to teach?

Cadet, I like you. I think you are a smart person who contributes a lot to discussion (unlike many other of the new members). But you need to think about what you are saying sometimes.

Actually, yeah. Despite a choice few. Unless you're one of those people that changes history because of what you do, Washington, i don't see much of any reason to get married if you're not going to have kids.
And, if i couldn't have kids, i'd adopt.

[Noir]

Opinion on the thread topic is what this all comes down to then as well isn't it. -as i said in my 1st post-

It appears there are not enough agreed upon facts to convince any side what's right (in everyone's own eyes - not God's) here.

Cadet bases it on Nature folks dispute that,
I base it on God, nature and history folks dispute that.

But your opinion should somehow prevail based on what?
I think any defense you post can be disputed as well, 'They are born that way'... no proof of that, just speculation. 'It's a right', ... it's not a right that the state acknowledge or approve any marriages. 'People want it' ... a lot of people don't want it, and anyway people want a lot of stuff... so what.

so whos opinion has more facts to back it up? If it were decided there alone it be easy. but folks won't let facts get in the way of this emotion charged issue.

I'd put it down to being a right, and as a right the state should have no interest in it. i.e. not that the state should 'legalise gay marriage' rather that the state should never of had the power to make it illegal in the first place.

[Noir]

Actually, yeah. Despite a choice few. Unless you're one of those people that changes history because of what you do, Washington, i don't see much of any reason to get married if you're not going to have kids.
And, if i couldn't have kids, i'd adopt.

So marriage only makes sense to you if the people getting married want kids, hmm...

[red state]

Statements that no one, as of yet, is disputing. "Marriage" is a man-made institution and should not be included in discussions of "natural."


For those who are a bit slower than others or atheistic in origin:

HUSBAND: A husband is a male lifetime partner in a marital relationship. The rights and obligations of the husband regarding his spouse and others, and his status in the community and in law, vary between cultures and has varied over time. Four in five American men get married in their lifetime.

WIFE: A wife is a female lifetime partner in a continuing marital relationship. A wife may also...blah, blah, blah.

*Of course, this is simply my OPINION...along with the opinion of God, the overwhelming majority of ALL cultures/societies and Mr. Dictionary.

GOD WROTE: "Therefore a MAN shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his WIFE, ... What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

As to the notion that homosexuals can have children and if it is natural....of course they can have children but it is not natural. As with the nature aspect of this, the animals who "marry" are there for the long haul to teach the needed info for survival (not just the survival of that offspring but the survival of the species). IF, let's say, a repetitive practice of homosexual offspring becomes more and more acceptable and popular, the overall species is damaged or drastically reduced in population. Hhhmmmm, perhaps that is why liberals support AGENDA 21's drastic reduction of the world's population & Homosexual Marriage as being a big contributing factor since they can't have their OWN children. HA!!! NO, I fear that they are "manufacturing" their own homosexual offspring. The child will certainly be damaged or hampered from having a normal life or lifestyle.

With that, I'll leave everyone with these definitions:

ODD: differing in nature from what is ordinary, usual, or expected: an odd choice. 2. singular or peculiar in a strange or eccentric way: an odd person; odd manners.
QUEER: differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal b (1) : eccentric, unconventional (2) : mildly insane : touched c : absorbed or interested to an extreme ...
STRANGE: alienated...as a result of being out of one's natural environment or purpose.

3832 And YES there is a GOD...I know cuz I've seen Him....

[Missileman]

Did you read my first post? I discussed that marriage is natural. ish.
The animals mate for life to take care of their young. Making some sort of natural marriage.

Having offspring with a different partner every season is natural too and occurs far more often than monogamy. Human males have to deny their nature to mate with just one female for life. The whole point of this thread has been rendered invalid.

[red state]

That's the difference between a 'male' and a "MAN"...I have no such inclinations as to "pairing up" or "Shacking up" with anyone else but my BEST friend of over 23+ years. It would seem that the the higher levels of the animal kingdom are those that stick together...namely, one of the most prestigious among the birds and our National Symbol. Of course, the TURKEY was almost our National Symbol...and it is anything but monogamous.

[aboutime]

I'm tired of hearing about it. Everyone old enough to remember the name Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter, and all they have in common knows. When we were born. Nobody, but Nobody ever questioned whether our PARENTS, whom we called MOM, and DAD had done something WE ALL CONSIDERED Natural.

So today. More than half a century later. A minority of attention seeking, demanding, selfish, UN-NATURAL Americans are now Demanding that ALL OF US accept THEIR version of an un-natural way of life?

If you shut up. Mind your own business. And stop demanding that I accept, or pay for what you demand all the time. I might tend to agree with you.
But...as long as you keep sounding like weird versions of Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton who also are demanding that WE accept responsibility for Un-natural acts...like Slavery. I will refuse to accept ANYTHING YOU DEMAND.
The Constitution IS still on My Side. Show me, or anyone else where, in the constitution. I am responsible for anything You demand.

[fj1200]

For those who are a bit slower than others or atheistic in origin:


That's the difference between a 'male' and a "MAN"...

You're not even really close to the original premise of the thread. Why do you insist that the power of government be wielded in your favor?

[fj1200]

The Constitution IS still on My Side. Show me, or anyone else where, in the constitution. I am responsible for anything You demand.

Can you quote the clause in the Constitution that mandates that marriage be defined by the government?

[aboutime]

Can you quote the clause in the Constitution that mandates that marriage be defined by the government?


Tell us how to quote something that does not exist. Then we can talk.

The words logic, common sense, reality, and STUPID are not mentioned in that document. But that doesn't mean they do not exist.

[gabosaurus]

Marriage is for those who are deeply in love with each other. There shouldn't be any other purpose involved. There should be no requirement to reproduce. I know couple who have been married for decades and have no kids. Children are not part of their plan for life.
My problem is with divorce and remarriage. Unless your spouse dies or is unfaithful, you should stay with her, for better or for worse. Marriage should not be like a used car lot. You should be able to decide you want to return your spouse for a newer model. Work things out or sit it out.

I don't see how marriages are related to religion. I was married in a church, but my sister was not. Neither were my parents. Marriage is a civil ceremony.

[fj1200]

Tell us how to quote something that does not exist. Then we can talk.

The words logic, common sense, reality, and STUPID are not mentioned in that document. But that doesn't mean they do not exist.

Wow, there is a glimmer of thought in those gray cells of yours. Then why would you bring up the Constitution in a thread that you acknowledge has nothing to do with it?

[cadet]

Marriage is for those who are deeply in love with each other. There shouldn't be any other purpose involved. There should be no requirement to reproduce. I know couple who have been married for decades and have no kids. Children are not part of their plan for life.
My problem is with divorce and remarriage. Unless your spouse dies or is unfaithful, you should stay with her, for better or for worse. Marriage should not be like a used car lot. You should be able to decide you want to return your spouse for a newer model. Work things out or sit it out.

I don't see how marriages are related to religion. I was married in a church, but my sister was not. Neither were my parents. Marriage is a civil ceremony.

I find it a great idea to have kids, and alot of them.
When your spouse dies, you have nooone. No reason to live. No family. No legacy. And noone to take care of you in your old age. I feel so sorry for every person that doesn't have kids, they'll be miserable.

No one to teach, no one to give high morals to...
and you can't forget the worst part, you can't go do all those roller coaster rides and kid stuff without kids. Cause if you do, people will look at you like you're a pedophile.

(Speaking of doing kids stuff, I have to drag my brothers to wreck it ralph... so i can see it.)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I find it a great idea to have kids, and alot of them.
When your spouse dies, you have nooone. No reason to live. No family. No legacy. And noone to take care of you in your old age. I feel so sorry for every person that doesn't have kids, they'll be miserable.

No one to teach, no one to give high morals to...
and you can't forget the worst part, you can't go do all those roller coaster rides and kid stuff without kids. Cause if you do, people will look at you like you're a pedophile.

Only a few things worse than being very old and very lonely! I am 27 years older than my wife so it is not likely that I'll ever have to face that. And she will have our son with her. We've had a great and hard struggle because of our son's health problems but I wouldnt trade him for all the money in the world a thousand lifetimes to spend it!-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

If my husband dies before I do, it will be extremely sad. But it won't end my life. I would still have my sister, her husband and a ton of very wonderful friends. Along with a lot of other relatives.

I don't think of my family as just my husband and my daughter. I have a very extended family. One of my best friends lives in England and has two kids. My other best friend lives in Austin and has a family. I have several cousins, both here and in Germany.
I have a very close friend who lives in Melbourne, Australia. She is in her early 30s and teaches special education. She has never gotten married and doesn't plan to, because she considers her classes as her "children." She has told me that I am always welcome in her home.

Single people can do whatever they want these days. No one should be judging them for living outside the curve.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If my husband dies before I do, it will be extremely sad. But it won't end my life. I would still have my sister, her husband and a ton of very wonderful friends. Along with a lot of other relatives.

I don't think of my family as just my husband and my daughter. I have a very extended family. One of my best friends lives in England and has two kids. My other best friend lives in Austin and has a family. I have several cousins, both here and in Germany.
I have a very close friend who lives in Melbourne, Australia. She is in her early 30s and teaches special education. She has never gotten married and doesn't plan to, because she considers her classes as her "children." She has told me that I am always welcome in her home.

Single people can do whatever they want these days. No one should be judging them for living outside the curve.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ KUDOS, BEST POST THAT I'VE EVER SEEN FROM YA.-:clap: -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Thank you, kind sir. :beer:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thank you, kind sir. :beer:

Had to give ya props on that post. It was so richly deserved. More like that and I'll have to reappraise my judgement and it usually irks me something terrible to have to do that but-- on this one- yea-:beer:-Tyr

[avatar4321]

Your logical support for gay marriage has been noted. Gays have kids.

Find me two homosexuals who have procreated together, meaning that the child in question has 23 choromosones from each of them, then ill take your argument seriously.

[Missileman]

Find me two homosexuals who have procreated together, meaning that the child in question has 23 choromosones from each of them, then ill take your argument seriously.

Says the guy with NO argument at all.

Do you have any idea how many millions of straight marriages don't meet/haven't met this requirement of yours?

[Noir]

I find it a great idea to have kids, and alot of them.
When your spouse dies, you have nooone. No reason to live. No family. No legacy. And noone to take care of you in your old age. I feel so sorry for every person that doesn't have kids, they'll be miserable.

Your judgements of other people are coming thick and fast in this thread, now not only are you consigning people who are infertile to have no reason to marry, but now that inevitably "they'll be miserable, and even "no reason to live"...

So, what if some day in the future, you were to find that you are infertile, would you resign yourself to a miserable, loveless, marryless life?

[taft2012]

Unfortunately for you though that's not my argument. Gays have kids, according to the OP parents are there for the kids, ergo we should not discriminate against couples that have kids. The conclusion presented does not match the premise.

Incestuous couples have kids too. Should we not discriminate against them as well?

[taft2012]

Why do you feel the need to continually call out the "new members"? Your issue with them is their opinion, or coloring of posts. But you disrupt threads and flame about them. Which is worse and which is worse for the board reading the threads?

Not to worry.

She's kind of like Ron Paul at the far podium in a debate. The kookiness is brief, an entertaining interlude before returning to serious discussion of the issue at hand.

[fj1200]

Find me two homosexuals who have procreated together, meaning that the child in question has 23 choromosones from each of them, then ill take your argument seriously.

Missile beat me to it so I'll just say that two homosexuals procreating "together," by your definition, is completely beside the point. As soon as you show me that gays have NO kids then the premise as stated by the OP may have merit. Until then anyone who says that marriage is, "for the children," will have to acknowledge that extending the definition to include the gays would be beneficial.


Incestuous couples have kids too. Should we not discriminate against them as well?

According to the OP they should have complete marriage rights.





Can someone please explain the dichotomy of small-government advocates insisting that government be in the business of deciding whose relationship to sanction and granting benefits based on that sanctioning.

[taft2012]

Can you quote the clause in the Constitution that mandates that marriage be defined by the government?

Marriage is not a "right" defined by government, it is a licensed privilege defined by government and government defines privileges all the time.

Driving a car is a privilege. Voting is a privilege. Rights can not be taken away but privileges can. You can rob a bank, go to jail for 10 years, and be released and still have the rights to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. But your voting privileges will have been forfeited.

If you went to prison for killing someone while driving a car while intoxicated, your driving privileges may also be forfeited.

Once people start talking about marriage as a "right," then it can not be denied to anyone. The rights above, the ones that a freed bank robber has, a 10 year-old kid has those very same rights. If marriage is declared a "right", then the 10 year-old kid also has that right, and at that point we no longer can deny marriage to 10 year-olds.

But as it is, we can deny marriage licenses to 10 year-old kids just like we deny them driving and voting privileges.

Libdoodles like to cite to the old laws that used to ban interracial marriages as rights violations. They were rights violations but not how the libdoodles think. Those laws denied equal access to the privilege of marriage. Overturning those laws allowed equal access to the privilege of marriage, but the act of overturning those laws did not rewrite the privilege itself. Marriage remained one man/one woman. Government retained the right to put whatever parameters on whatever privileges it allows according to how it sees fit:

*marriage is between one man/one woman
*people must be XX years-old to drive a car
*people must be XX years-old to vote

[fj1200]

Marriage is not a "right" defined by government, it is a licensed privilege defined by government and government defines privileges all the time.

...

Libdoodles like to cite to the old laws that used to ban interracial marriages as rights violations. They were rights violations but not how the libdoodles think. Those laws denied equal access to the privilege of marriage. Overturning those laws allowed equal access to the privilege of marriage, but the act of overturning those laws did not rewrite the privilege itself. Marriage remained one man/one woman. Government retained the right to put whatever parameters on whatever privileges it allows according to how it sees fit:

So you also agree that the Constitution doesn't indicate the definition of marriage. Excellent, that's two.

I guess I can also put you in the camp that, while advocating for limited government, are perfectly OK with government defining privileges that preference you and not those others.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Marriage is not a "right" defined by government, it is a licensed privilege defined by government and government defines privileges all the time.

Driving a car is a privilege. Voting is a privilege. Rights can not be taken away but privileges can. You can rob a bank, go to jail for 10 years, and be released and still have the rights to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. But your voting privileges will have been forfeited.

If you went to prison for killing someone while driving a car while intoxicated, your driving privileges may also be forfeited.

Once people start talking about marriage as a "right," then it can not be denied to anyone. The rights above, the ones that a freed bank robber has, a 10 year-old kid has those very same rights. If marriage is declared a "right", then the 10 year-old kid also has that right, and at that point we no longer can deny marriage to 10 year-olds.

But as it is, we can deny marriage licenses to 10 year-old kids just like we deny them driving and voting privileges.

Libdoodles like to cite to the old laws that used to ban interracial marriages as rights violations. They were rights violations but not how the libdoodles think. Those laws denied equal access to the privilege of marriage. Overturning those laws allowed equal access to the privilege of marriage, but the act of overturning those laws did not rewrite the privilege itself. Marriage remained one man/one woman. Government retained the right to put whatever parameters on whatever privileges it allows according to how it sees fit:

*marriage is between one man/one woman
*people must be XX years-old to drive a car
*people must be XX years-old to vote

You know that in lib fantasyland a right is what tha hell ever they say it is! That is why so many of them hate our Constitution, it does not permit so much of their idiotcy. Your post was dead on but to a lib it was redneck unenlightened blather. For they view most non-libs as such in order to continue to feed their massive egos.Tyr

[fj1200]

You know that in lib fantasyland a right is what tha hell ever they say it is! That is why so many of them hate our Constitution, it does not permit so much of their idiotcy. Your post was dead on but to a lib it was redneck unenlightened blather. For they view most non-libs as such in order to continue to feed their massive egos.Tyr

Actually Taft eloquently portrayed his big-government position as to why the State should intervene in interpersonal relationships.

Also, please point out the "lib(s)" in this thread. Hint, it's not who you think it is.

[taft2012]

I guess I can also put you in the camp that, while advocating for limited government, are perfectly OK with government defining privileges that preference you and not those others.

"Limited Government" advocates advocate for precisely that: "Limited Government".

Not anarchy.

So unless you're in favor of 6 year-olds driving 18 wheelers on the interstates, and 10 year-olds getting married, and convicted felons voting, I assume I can also put you in the camp of being "perfectly OK with government defining privileges that preference you and not those others

[fj1200]

"Limited Government" advocates advocate for precisely that: "Limited Government".

Not anarchy.

So unless you're in favor of 6 year-olds driving 18 wheelers on the interstates, and 10 year-olds getting married, and convicted felons voting, I assume I can also put you in the camp of being "perfectly OK with government defining privileges that preference you and not those others

Wow, quick with the strawman this one is. Anarchy? :laugh:

[taft2012]

Wow, quick with the strawman this one is. Anarchy? :laugh:

No more of a strawman than your contention that if one argues the government has an oversight role in licensed privileges, then that is not a "limited government" position.

Unless you are "perfectly OK with government defining privileges that preference you and not those others" ?

[fj1200]

No more of a strawman than your contention that if one argues the government has an oversight role in licensed privileges, then that is not a "limited government" position.

Unless you are "perfectly OK with government defining privileges that preference you and not those others" ?

Except that the government has not limited itself to mere oversight, it has not only ratified and defined an interpersonal relationship it has attached benefits to those who meet the governments definition. That last part? Not a limited government position.

And your strawman list was silly. To say that the government doesn't have an oversight role in assuring safety on the highways or saying that a 10-year old doesn't have the legal capacity to enter into a contract is way off base. Besides, those laws are applied equally.

[taft2012]

Except that the government has not limited itself to mere oversight, it has not only ratified and defined an interpersonal relationship it has attached benefits to those who meet the governments definition. That last part? Not a limited government position.

And your strawman list was silly. To say that the government doesn't have an oversight role in assuring safety on the highways or saying that a 10-year old doesn't have the legal capacity to enter into a contract is way off base. Besides, those laws are applied equally.

<brain asplodes!>

The marriage laws *ARE* equally applied. I went over that. Every man and every woman in this country has the same right and equal access to the marriage privilege.

You're not looking to give someone the right to the privilege, you're looking to rewrite the privilege.

[taft2012]

I am 27 years older than my wife

Hope you read this first. I have, it's good reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Way-Go-Date/dp/0968772501/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344602590&sr=8-2&keywords=makow+a+long+way+to+go+for+a+date


Author Makow takes the reader on a thoughtful ride through the trials and tribulations of marrying a Filipina 30 years his junior.

[fj1200]

The marriage laws *ARE* equally applied. I went over that. Every man and every woman in this country has the same right and equal access to the marriage privilege.

So YOU think based on YOUR wishes of who YOU want to give preference too. Remember the OP? It's about the kids.


You're not looking to give someone the right to the privilege, you're looking to rewrite the privilege.

My position is clear if you've been paying attention. The privilege has no basis in a limited government. You're looking to retain the privilege for you and not those you disagree with.</brain>

[taft2012]

So YOU think based on YOUR wishes of who YOU want to give preference too. Remember the OP? It's about the kids.

No, so I *KNOW*. I'm not talking about children or religion. Any man, of legal age, and not of a prohibited blood relation, may marry any woman who will have him, and vice versa. It's applied equally across the board. No one is denied the right of equal access to that privilege.

If you're arguing against the man/woman qualification of the privilege, then how would you defend the anti-incest, anti-pedophile, and anti-polygamist aspects of the privilege?




My position is clear if you've been paying attention. The privilege has no basis in a limited government. You're looking to retain the privilege for you and not those you disagree with.</brain>

You Ron Paul kooks argue like liberals. A liberal can say, "The minimum wage should be raised to $25 an hour."

A conservative objects and they call him all sorts of names.

The answer to that line of demagoguery is to just take a position further out than the liberal. "No, I support a minimum wage of $100 an hour, and if you oppose me you hate the poor!"

So I'll take a position further out than you. "Pedophiles, inbreeders, polygamists, gays, and heck, gay-incestuous-polygamists, should all have the same access to the marriage privilege. And if you disagree you're not a small government advocate!"

I might also add that this country was founded with the most limited government in the history of the human race and the marriage privilege has always existed.

[fj1200]

No, so I *KNOW*. I'm not talking about children or religion. Any man, of legal age, and not of a prohibited blood relation, may marry any woman who will have him, and vice versa. It's applied equally across the board. No one is denied the right of equal access to that privilege.

If you're arguing against the man/woman qualification of the privilege, then how would you defend the anti-incest, anti-pedophile, and anti-polygamist aspects of the privilege?

You're right, they are not denied that as long as they fit into your box. That, however, is not a defense of why the privilege and it's inherent benefits are even provided for in the first place.


You Ron Paul kooks argue like liberals. A liberal can say, "The minimum wage should be raised to $25 an hour."

A conservative objects and they call him all sort of names.

The answer to that line of demagoguery is to just take a position further out than the liberal. "No, I support a minimum wage of $100 an hour, and if you oppose me you hate the poor!"

So I'll take a position further out than you. "Pedophiles, inbreeders, polygamists, gays, and heck, gay-incestuous-polygamists, should all have the same access to the marriage privilege. And if you disagree you're not a small government advocate!"

Ron Paul kook eh? :rolleyes: When in doubt pull out the lib/kook card. Since you seem like you haven't noticed, I don't want to provide anyone with access to any privilege. I wish to remove the privilege and government provided benefits.

Do you recognize yet that minors do not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract (which marriage essentially is)? Neither do horses if that's your next line of reasoning.

[fj1200]

I might also add that this country was founded with the most limited government in the history of the human race and the marriage privilege has always existed.

I noticed your edit: Do you want the slavery argument now or later?

[taft2012]

You're right, they are not denied that as long as they fit into your box. That, however, is not a defense of why the privilege and it's inherent benefits are even provided for in the first place.

You won't answer; do you have an anti-polygamist, anti-pedophile, and anti-incestuous box or not?



Since you seem like you haven't noticed, I don't want to provide anyone with access to any privilege. I wish to remove the privilege and government provided benefits.

As I mentioned, this country was founded with the most limited government in the history of the human race and has always had the marriage privilege.

The benefits you describe are tax benefits which are not limited to married couples. There are a host of targeted tax benefits the gov't applies to an array of situations, not just marriage. As long as they are equally applied, there is no problem there.


Do you recognize yet that minors do not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract (which marriage essentially is)? Neither do horses if that's your next line of reasoning.

You do recognize that minors have Constitutional rights, don't you? If the privilege itself is being redefined as a "right", then it can not be denied to anyone.

Driving a car isn't a right, neither is voting.

[fj1200]

You won't answer; do you have an anti-polygamist, anti-pedophile, and anti-incestuous box or not?

Sure I did, that whole legal capacity thing. You won't answer either; why is the government in the business of providing benefits based on that definition?


As I mentioned, this country was founded with the most limited government in the history of the human race and has always had the marriage privilege.

The benefits you describe are tax benefits which are not limited to married couples. There are a host of targeted tax benefits the gov't applies to an array of situations, not just marriage. As long as they are equally applied, there is no problem there.

:cough: slavery :cough: I didn't mention anything about tax benefits, I did mention SS and Medicare. Convenient how you are more equal than others.


You do recognize that minors have Constitutional rights, don't you? If the privilege itself is being redefined as a "right", then it can not be denied to anyone.

Driving a car isn't a right, neither is voting.

Of course they are yet they can't sign contracts. Oh, and I haven't defined anything as a "right."

[taft2012]

Sure I did, that whole legal capacity thing. You won't answer either; why is the government in the business of providing benefits based on that definition?

The government provides many benefits based on many definitions.



:cough: slavery :cough:

WTF?


I didn't mention anything about tax benefits, I did mention SS and Medicare. Convenient how you are more equal than others.

Again, the equal access to SS and Medicare are there for any married coupled, equally. Nothing to do with any "box", everything to do with the way the privilege is written by our elected representatives.



Of course they are yet they can't sign contracts. Oh, and I haven't defined anything as a "right."

So if it's not a right, and the government has the authority to define privileges as it deems in the best interests of society, what's your beef?

[fj1200]

The government provides many benefits based on many definitions.

Why should they?


WTF?

This country was founded with the most limited government in the history of the human race and had slavery.


Again, the equal access to SS and Medicare are there for any married coupled, equally. Nothing to do with any "box", everything to do with the way the privilege is written by our elected representatives.

Defend the privilege that you get that others do not.


So if it's not a right, and the government has the authority to define privileges as it deems in the best interests of society, what's your beef?

:facepalm99:

[taft2012]

Why should they?

Why should the government provide benefits? If that's your argument, then that's a different argument. We're talking about marriage here. If you want to discuss removal of all targeted government benefits it would be appropriate to start another thread.


This country was founded with the most limited government in the history of the human race and had slavery.

The existence of slavery is not an indicator of big government. The argument at the time was respect for private property. It was argued at the time that emancipation represented the hugest government seizure of private property in history.


Defend the privilege that you get that others do not.

Explain how anyone else is denied the privilege I have. I don't have the privilege of marrying another man.

[taft2012]

Frankly, I would like the privilege to marry myself and get the benefits married couples get.

Masturbation is sex with the person I love most in the world
I could use another tax deduction
I would sue myself for divorce, take half of everything I have, and increase my net wealth by 50%.:clap:

[fj1200]

Why should the government provide benefits? If that's your argument, then that's a different argument. We're talking about marriage here. If you want to discuss removal of all targeted government benefits it would be appropriate to start another thread.

Sorry, no. I've been talking about that for multiple pages. You may call your relationship whatever you like and the gay man who introduced his husband to me will call his relationship whatever he likes.


The existence of slavery is not an indicator of big government. The argument at the time was respect for private property. It was argued at the time that emancipation represented the hugest government seizure of private property in history.

No, the existence of slavery correlates to the time frame that you claim our "limited government" providing a marriage privilege while at the same time denying natural rights to some.


Explain how anyone else is denied the privilege I have. I don't have the privilege of marrying another man.

You have the privilege of taking the spouse of your choosing and being granted government benefits because of it.

[taft2012]

Sorry, no. I've been talking about that for multiple pages. You may call your relationship whatever you like and the gay man who introduced his husband to me will call his relationship whatever he likes.

And I can call my 1995 Nissan a 2012 Mercedes. Doesn't make it so, does it? It may make me feel good to do so, but I'd really just be playing a game, wouldn't I?

Like some fellas would just be "playing house."


No, the existence of slavery correlates to the time frame that you claim our "limited government" providing a marriage privilege while at the same time denying natural rights to some.

So, you consider the federal government nullifying overnight the personal wealth of a huge sector of the country "small government"? I'd hate to see what you call "big government."




You have the privilege of taking the spouse of your choosing and being granted government benefits because of it.

My privilege is not different than anyone else's. If you're saying the privilege needs to adapt to suit everyone equally, then you're saying it is a right, despite your feeble utterances to the contrary.

[Missileman]

My privilege is not different than anyone else's.

If gays are allowed to marry, the statement you just made remains 100% true.

[logroller]

So, you consider the federal government nullifying overnight the personal wealth of a huge sector of the country "small government"? I'd hate to see what you call "big government."


Let me just clarify your position here-- you consider abolition to be "federal government nullifying personal wealth"?

Well, wives were 'traditionally' considered the property of their husbands. Husbands could beat and rape them just like masters could beat and rape their slaves. (until "big gov't" intervened anyways)

[taft2012]

If gays are allowed to marry, the statement you just made remains 100% true.

Did I ever say otherwise?

[taft2012]

Let me just clarify your position here-- you consider abolition to be "federal government nullifying personal wealth"?



Let me clarify your position --- are you being willfully ignorant or is it just something that flows naturally through you?

There's an important word in play here.... "CONTEXT!"

[taft2012]

If gays are allowed to marry, the statement you just made remains 100% true.

I'll try one more time to get through to the Ron Paul kooks....


Re-drawing the parameters of a privilege under the guise of providing an equal right, elevates that privilege to the status of a right.

Maybe you'll understand the danger of this if I can provide a palpable example of the opposite, i.e., turning a right into a privilege:

The 2nd Amendment provides a very strong right to keep and bear arms. Liberals have broken down this clearly delineated Constitutional right, busting it all the way down to a licensed privilege, which they can now take away, like a driver's license.

When something becomes a right, it can not be denied to anyone. In the case of marriage; it can not be denied to pedophiles, polygamists, and incestuous groupings, etc. Forget mindless driveling about minors not being able to sign contracts, that only applies if marriage is a privilege. If it is a right it can't be denied to anyone.

[logroller]

Let me clarify your position --- are you being willfully ignorant or is it just something that flows naturally through you?

There's an important word in play here.... "CONTEXT!"
It's accidental if it is, but the only ignorance in play here is your bigotry dressed as strawman.
If you wish to play the context game, then bigamy and pedophilia must be accepted in some context of what constitutes traditional marriage. However, statutory laws prohibit both based on the public interest at the time of their inception. They are subject to change; in more ways than one (no fault divorce/ single parent/ alimony/ child-support laws), the public institution of marriage as being necessary to family values has changed to the point where the public interest is no longer viably supported by the one man/one woman definition.
The op uses child-rearing as tangible public interest; but with the modern statutes I listed above, that is no longer viable imo-- just look at divorce rates! What, in your perspective, is the public interest in marriage?

[jimnyc]

Good to see you posting, Log! :beer:

[taft2012]

If you wish to play the context game

It's not a game. Read the discussion. You'll then be able to generate a more rational response than "ZOMG! Lookit what he said!"


What, in your perspective, is the public interest in marriage?

Are we having two distinct discussions now?:

1. Why should the government legally recognize marriages?

AND

2. Why shouldn't the government recognize gay marriages?

Pick one topic and we'll pursue that one...

[logroller]

I'll try one more time to get through to the Ron Paul kooks....


Re-drawing the parameters of a privilege under the guise of providing an equal right, elevates that privilege to the status of a right.

Maybe you'll understand the danger of this if I can provide a palpable example of the opposite, i.e., turning a right into a privilege:

The 2nd Amendment provides a very strong right to keep and bear arms. Liberals have broken down this clearly delineated Constitutional right, busting it all the way down to a licensed privilege, which they can now take away, like a driver's license.

When something becomes a right, it can not be denied to anyone. In the case of marriage; it can not be denied to pedophiles, polygamists, and incestuous groupings, etc. Forget mindless driveling about minors not being able to sign contracts, that only applies if marriage is a privilege. If it is a right it can't be denied to anyone.
I live in California, which I think is liberal by most standards, and in 5 interactions with law enforcement where i was bearing arms, I haven't been asked once if I had a license. I've been asked if I had a fishing license..so I guess fishing isn't a right, but rather, a privilege.
my wife recently got a passport, and to confirm her identity they asked for a birthcert and marriage license (since her name doesn't match her birth cert)-- so is proof of citizenship a privilege? or changing her name? I understand the reasoning to be proof of citizenship is most definitely in the public interest. No arguments there I would assume; but what public interest is there in our getting married and changing her name? Is changing one's name a privilege? Aliases may b in the public interest, but it's certainly not forbidden based on one's actions, beliefs or morals. Maybe it should be-- my buddy works in probation and came across a name shithead-- no joke-- pronounced shith-- eed! :laugh:

[taft2012]

I live in California, which I think is liberal by most standards, and in 5 interactions with law enforcement where i was bearing arms, I haven't been asked once if I had a license. I've been asked if I had a fishing license..so I guess fishing isn't a right, but rather, a privilege.
my wife recently got a passport, and to confirm her identity they asked for a birthcert and marriage license (since her name doesn't match her birth cert)-- so is proof of citizenship a privilege? or changing her name? I understand the reasoning to be proof of citizenship is most definitely in the public interest. No arguments there I would assume; but what public interest is there in our getting married and changing her name? Is changing one's name a privilege? Aliases may b in the public interest, but it's certainly not forbidden based on one's actions, beliefs or morals. Maybe it should be-- my buddy works in probation and came across a name shithead-- no joke-- pronounced shith-- eed! :laugh:

I'm in law enforcement in New York, and anybody we come across with a firearm the first thing we'll ask is if they have a license.

No, fishing is not a right. duh.

Having a passport is privilege which can be revoked, and often is as a condition of bail.

[logroller]

It's not a game. Read the discussion. You'll then be able to generate a more rational response than "ZOMG! Lookit what he said!"



Are we having two distinct discussions now?:

1. Why should the government legally recognize marriages?

AND

2. Why shouldn't the government recognize gay marriages?

Pick one topic and we'll pursue that one...
Can you answer the latter without first recognizing the former? I think it's essential to the context of state-recognized marriage.
Heck, even the 2nd amendment clearly cites the purpose for the right to bear arms as being necessary to the security of a free state.
So too with driving privileges; keeping the public safe is the intended purpose; limiting that privilege is deemed necessary to that intent. Thats why i can drive a car on private property without license-- theres no public interest in what i do with my car privately. Why should marriage be treated any differently? Why is marriage recognized by the state; what negative or positive effects does marriage (gay or straight) have on the public? If you can't answer that, then how do you establish rules, e.g. One man/one woman?

[logroller]

I'm in law enforcement in New York, and anybody we come across with a firearm the first thing we'll ask is if they have a license.

No, fishing is not a right. duh.

Having a passport is privilege which can be revoked, and often is as a condition of bail.
The revocation of passport is by due process, not public mandate. As for licensure, I'd show you the constitution and this
18 USC § 926ANotwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.


Not to mention, NY gun laws are arguably constitutional, and most likely are not; it just a matter of time before they are overturned. You are free to expedite the process; busting someone who violates a state law that violates federal law could accomplish that. But we're getting off subject. Marriage--what's the state's interest?

[Missileman]

I'll try one more time to get through to the Ron Paul kooks....


Re-drawing the parameters of a privilege under the guise of providing an equal right, elevates that privilege to the status of a right.

Maybe you'll understand the danger of this if I can provide a palpable example of the opposite, i.e., turning a right into a privilege:

The 2nd Amendment provides a very strong right to keep and bear arms. Liberals have broken down this clearly delineated Constitutional right, busting it all the way down to a licensed privilege, which they can now take away, like a driver's license.

When something becomes a right, it can not be denied to anyone. In the case of marriage; it can not be denied to pedophiles, polygamists, and incestuous groupings, etc. Forget mindless driveling about minors not being able to sign contracts, that only applies if marriage is a privilege. If it is a right it can't be denied to anyone.

Fuck you and your Ron Paul kook comment...jackass! Point to where I said anything about equal rights. The only argument you've managed so far is that privileges are never to be amended. Good thing previous generations have had more sense than you, otherwise women still wouldn't have the vote and interracial couples wouldn't be able to marry. There is a public benefit to allowing gays to marry and form families whether you'd acknowledge it or not.

[logroller]

Fuck you and your Ron Paul kook comment...jackass! Point to where I said anything about equal rights. The only argument you've managed so far is that privileges are never to be amended. Good thing previous generations have had more sense than you, otherwise women still wouldn't have the vote and interracial couples wouldn't be able to marry. There is a public benefit to allowing gays to marry and form families whether you'd acknowledge it or not.
I'd consider Ron Paul's kooky liberalism a compliment over the moral fascism of traditional marriage proponents.

[Missileman]

I'd consider Ron Paul's kooky liberalism a compliment over the moral fascism of traditional marriage proponents.

There wasn't anything in my original statement that would lead a rational person to a Ron Paul comment. I like a couple of Paul's ideas, but I'm not a fan or supporter.

[gabosaurus]

There wasn't anything in my original statement that would lead a rational person to a Ron Paul comment. I like a couple of Paul's ideas, but I'm not a fan or supporter.

There isn't anything that would lead a rational person to support Ron Paul. It is unfortunate that some do it anyway. :rolleyes:

[taft2012]

Fuck you and your Ron Paul kook comment...jackass! Point to where I said anything about equal rights. The only argument you've managed so far is that privileges are never to be amended. Good thing previous generations have had more sense than you, otherwise women still wouldn't have the vote and interracial couples wouldn't be able to marry. There is a public benefit to allowing gays to marry and form families whether you'd acknowledge it or not.

No, fuck you, DUMBASS.

I explained ad infinitum the difference between privileges and rights, and you STILL don't get it.

Women voting, interracial marriages... those changes amended the ACCESSS to the privileges, not the privileges themselves. The equal rights came in through ACCESS to the privileges, not the privileges themselves.

I apologize to all Ron Paul kooks for mistaking your dumbass for one of them.

[taft2012]

I'd consider Ron Paul's kooky liberalism a compliment over the moral fascism of traditional marriage proponents.

So if you think morality has no place in definiting the marital privilege, I assume that you support all marriages between two (maybe more) consenting adults?

You support incestuous marriages? Or is that where your personal morality enters the equation?

In which case, welcome to the ranks of the moral fasicsts.

[Missileman]

No, fuck you, DUMBASS.

I explained ad infinitum the difference between privileges and rights, and you STILL don't get it.

Women voting, interracial marriages... those changes amended the ACCESSS to the privileges, not the privileges themselves. The equal rights came in through ACCESS to the privileges, not the privileges themselves.

I apologize to all Ron Paul kooks for mistaking your dumbass for one of them.

So now it's some contrived bullshit ACCESS argument. Does allowing gays ACCESS to marriage alter the privilege of marriage for a straight couple?

Law enforcement my ass...you're too fucking stupid. My guess is crossing guard...under close supervision.

[taft2012]

So now it's some contrived bullshit ACCESS argument. Does allowing gays ACCESS to marriage alter the privilege of marriage for a straight couple?

Law enforcement my ass...you're too fucking stupid. My guess is crossing guard...under close supervision.

I explained this extensively from the beginning, DUMBASS.

The question is not allowing gays access to the marriage privilege.... it is about rewriting of the privilege to fit gays, as if the privilege itself is a right. Giving interracial couples access to the marriage privilege, and giving women access to the voting privilege, did NOT ALTER the privileges themselves. Every man and woman in this country right now has equal access to the marriage privilege, as called for the US Constitution.

Christ on a dashboard, you're dumb. You walk in halfway through a discussion, don't understand it, and start spazzing out all over the place.

Go back and read it from the beginning, and if you're still too dumb to get it after I've taken your hand and walked you through the entire discussion, come back again and I'll try to put together a Downs Syndrome version for you.

[Missileman]

I explained this extensively from the beginning, DUMBASS.

The question is not allowing gays access to the marriage privilege.... it is about rewriting of the privilege to fit gays, as if the privilege itself is a right. Giving interracial couples access to the marriage privilege, and giving women access to the voting privilege, did NOT ALTER the privileges themselves. Every man and woman in this country right now has equal access to the marriage privilege, as called for the US Constitution.

Christ on a dashboard, you're dumb. You walk in halfway through a discussion, don't understand it, and start spazzing out all over the place.

Go back and read it from the beginning, and if you're still too dumb to get it after I've taken your hand and walked you through the entire discussion, come back again and I'll try to put together a Downs Syndrome version for you.

Nice dodge...now answer my question!

[taft2012]

Nice dodge...now answer my question!

WTF are you talking about "dodge"? You responded too quickly, so I know you didn't have enough to time to go find somebody to read the whole thread to you, so you're still wallowing in ignorance.

I assume this is the question I supposedly "dodged"?


Does allowing gays ACCESS to marriage alter the privilege of marriage for a straight couple?

No, it doesn't. Now what the FUCK does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?

[Missileman]

WTF are you talking about "dodge"? You responded too quickly, so I know you didn't have enough to time to go find somebody to read the whole thread to you, so you're still wallowing in ignorance.

I assume this is the question I supposedly "dodged"?



No, it doesn't. Now what the FUCK does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?

It nullifies your argument about the altering of the privilege dummy.

[taft2012]

It nullifies your argument about the altering of the privilege dummy.

You don't even understand my argument about the altering of the privilege, asshole.

You think legalizing interracial marriages altered the privilege... you haven't a clue.

Take my advice; read more, post less.

[Missileman]

You don't even understand my argument about the altering of the privilege, asshole.

You think legalizing interracial marriages altered the privilege... you haven't a clue.

Take my advice; read more, post less.

STRAWMAN ALERT! I never wrote anything of the sort.

Take my advice and go fuck yourself!

[taft2012]

STRAWMAN ALERT! I never wrote anything of the sort.

Take my advice and go fuck yourself!

Yeah, you did, which is the only conceivable reason you mentioned it. It you mentioned it in any other context you would have been agreeing with me.

I realize now it is complete exercise in futility to get you to understand what I'm talking about when you don't even know what you're talking about.

So I'll leave you with this...

http://blogging.la/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up.jpg

[Missileman]

Yeah, you did, which is the only conceivable reason you mentioned it.

Quote it, fuckhead! Good luck!

[taft2012]

Quote it, fuckhead! Good luck!

Here ya go fuckface.


The only argument you've managed so far is that privileges are never to be amended. Good thing previous generations have had more sense than you, otherwise women still wouldn't have the vote and interracial couples wouldn't be able to marry.

If you're going to try to wriggle out of the above, which you will because you're incapable of admitting you're wrong... how does the above not fit what I said below?


You think legalizing interracial marriages altered the privilege... you haven't a clue

Chew on it, choke on it. Dickhead.

And just so you *might* learn something, I never said privileges should never be amended. I said they should not be spoken of as rights, nor should they be amended in the name of equal rights. Because they are privileges, not rights, and should not be elevated to the status of rights.

[fj1200]

And I can call my 1995 Nissan a 2012 Mercedes. Doesn't make it so, does it? It may make me feel good to do so, but I'd really just be playing a game, wouldn't I?

Like some fellas would just be "playing house."

Marriages are cars now? Way to stretch the analogy.


So, you consider the federal government nullifying overnight the personal wealth of a huge sector of the country "small government"? I'd hate to see what you call "big government."

No, I consider you claiming historical privilege where it suits you and disavowing it where it does not.


My privilege is not different than anyone else's. If you're saying the privilege needs to adapt to suit everyone equally, then you're saying it is a right, despite your feeble utterances to the contrary.

Your privilege is greater than others and you desire that those benefits be available to who you choose. And please point out where I claimed marriage is a right.


I'll try one more time to get through to the Ron Paul kooks....


Re-drawing the parameters of a privilege under the guise of providing an equal right, elevates that privilege to the status of a right.

Maybe you'll understand the danger of this if I can provide a palpable example of the opposite, i.e., turning a right into a privilege:

The 2nd Amendment provides a very strong right to keep and bear arms. Liberals have broken down this clearly delineated Constitutional right, busting it all the way down to a licensed privilege, which they can now take away, like a driver's license.

When something becomes a right, it can not be denied to anyone. In the case of marriage; it can not be denied to pedophiles, polygamists, and incestuous groupings, etc. Forget mindless driveling about minors not being able to sign contracts, that only applies if marriage is a privilege. If it is a right it can't be denied to anyone.

Many words to defend your right to greater benefits.

[jimnyc]

Can we leave out the nasty name calling, everyone, and try and get back to just the topics and arguments.

[taft2012]

Your privilege is greater than others and you desire that those benefits be available to who you choose. And please point out where I claimed marriage is a right.



Many words to defend your right to greater benefits.

Wrong. I have no greater privilege than any other man. I have no greater benefits. That's a lie.

[fj1200]

Wrong. I have no greater privilege than any other man. I have no greater benefits. That's a lie.

Incorrect. An example:


Social SecuritySocial Security provides the sole means of support for some elderly Americans. All working Americans contribute to this program through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement. Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments. A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment. Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry. Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

[taft2012]

That's a post-marriage benefit, just like other tax benefits.

I meant I have no added benefit over any other man to get married. I have no added benefit over any woman either, lesbian or otherwise.

There are rules to marriage, and people can either live with them or not.

Furthermore, I support cleaning up those loose ends, like estates, etc. for same sex couples.

[fj1200]

That's a post-marriage benefit, just like other tax benefits.

I meant I have no added benefit over any other man to get married. I have no added benefit over any woman either, lesbian or otherwise.

There are rules to marriage, and people can either live with them or not.

Furthermore, I support cleaning up those loose ends, like estates, etc. for same sex couples.

Oh geez. Straight couples have benefits over gay couples. Another example.


The spousal retirement benefit: When couples retire, each partner earns a Social Security benefit based on their income and the number of years they have worked and paid payroll taxes. If the federal government recognizes a couple as married, the spouse with the lower monthly benefit can choose to take either their own benefit or one-half their higher-earning spouse’s benefit, whichever is more.

For the non-dead even.

[taft2012]

Oh geez. Straight couples have benefits over gay couples. Another example.



For the non-dead even.

What part of "post marriage" don't you understand?

Jesus, it's like talking to brick fuckin' walls. Do any of you imbeciles have an ounce of critical thinking ability?

[logroller]

What part of "post marriage" don't you understand?

The state's interest in the marriage part. I'm not talking about bigamy or incest, gay or lesbian, just plain old white-bread man and woman getting hitched-- what interest does the state have in licensing the activity?
If you can answer that, then we can discuss why gay/ polygamous/ incestual marriages fail to satisfy that interest.

[Missileman]

Here ya go fuckface.



If you're going to try to wriggle out of the above, which you will because you're incapable of admitting you're wrong... how does the above not fit what I said below?



Chew on it, choke on it. Dickhead.

And just so you *might* learn something, I never said privileges should never be amended. I said they should not be spoken of as rights, nor should they be amended in the name of equal rights. Because they are privileges, not rights, and should not be elevated to the status of rights.

The privilege of marriage was amended to include interracial couples. The institution of marriage was not altered. If gays are included in the privilege of marriage, the institution of marriage for straight couples is not altered, as you've already acknowledged.

[taft2012]

The privilege of marriage was amended to include interracial couples. The institution of marriage was not altered. If gays are included in the privilege of marriage, the institution of marriage for straight couples is not altered, as you've already acknowledged.


No, the privilege of marriage remained the same, one man/one woman. It was the ACCESS to the privilege that was changed.

Just like voting didn't change for women, it was the ACCESS to the privilege that was changed.

Everyone has the *right* to equal access to the privilege, but the privilege itself is not a right.

Christ, I went over all of this in detail already.... really, you've all worn me down with your willful ignorance. You all win. Enjoy your Downs Syndrome victory lap.

[logroller]

No, the privilege of marriage remained the same, one man/one woman. It was the ACCESS to the privilege that was changed.

Just like voting didn't change for women, it was the ACCESS to the privilege that was changed.

Everyone has the *right* to equal access to the privilege, but the privilege itself is not a right.

Christ, I went over all of this in detail already.... really, you've all worn me down with your willful ignorance. You all win. Enjoy your Downs Syndrome victory lap.
Willful ignorance of what-- voting rights being a privilege? Guilty as charged-- I was basing my opinion on the wording used in the constitution...silly me. That isn't to mean rights don't have limits, or can't be taken away--of course they can, it happens every day. But when the state does it, it has to further some public interest.

I never disputed marriage was a privilege that could have limits; of course they do, but even rights have limited protection by the state. I've yet to hear why the state would sanction marriage in the first place.

[fj1200]

What part of "post marriage" don't you understand?

Jesus, it's like talking to brick fuckin' walls. Do any of you imbeciles have an ounce of critical thinking ability?

Well I guess I understand you trying to semantic your way out of a losing argument because "post marriage" to me is after the marriage is no longer active, i.e. death, divorce, etc.

[taft2012]

Well I guess I understand you trying to semantic your way out of a losing argument because "post marriage" to me is after the marriage is no longer active, i.e. death, divorce, etc.

So it was your sincere belief that when I was speaking of the tax benefits married couples receive "post-marriage" I meant upon divorce or death? This, in the context of a discussion about the process of getting married at all...?

You're trying to lie your way out of a losing argument.

[Noir]

Still waiting for Cadets reply to atleast one of my posts to him....

[KarlMarx]

Your logical support for gay marriage has been noted. Gays have kids.

Gays can have kids like chimps can drive cars. Really... the logic is inescapable, two men or two women cannot have children.

Here's the problem. Once you start redefining marriage as anything else as something between one man and one woman unrelated by blood, then you throw open the door to it being anything.

I suppose Muslims from other countries who settle here will want to be able to declare their multiple wives as dependents on their tax returns... and they can use all the same arguments that gays use ... they want them to inherit their property, they want to declare them as dependents, they want them to get their pensions....

I can see this opening the door to abuse of the institution.. and it's just a matter of time before it does. Lawyers being what they are, they will stretch the intent of any legislation redefining marriage no matter how well intended it originally was so that eventually, you'll be able to marry your cat or your favorite cartoon character...

Judy Jetson and me.. or me and the Chicken of the Sea mermaid... I wanted to marry both of them when I was 5... don't see why I can't

[jimnyc]

Still waiting for Cadets reply to atleast one of my posts to him....

Pot, kettle.... maybe if you didn't do the same elsewhere when your comments were blasted out of the water.... just sayin!

[Voted4Reagan]

Personally...I couldn't care less if adam and Steve or Jane and Jill get married...

Just more fodder for the Divorce attorneys who can now practice on 100% of the people in this country and not just 85% as they had been...

Communal Property Laws TRULY SUCK!! As Gay people are starting to find out!!! Alimony, Child Suport....ATTORNEYS FEES!!

They may want to go back to the OLD SYSTEM!!!

[Missileman]

Gays can have kids like chimps can drive cars. Really... the logic is inescapable, two men or two women cannot have children.

Gays have children, just not biologically with each other. There are millions of straight couples in the very same position but I don't hear anyone calling for their marriages to be disallowed.



Here's the problem. Once you start redefining marriage as anything else as something between one man and one woman unrelated by blood, then you throw open the door to it being anything.

It wasn't all that long ago that marriage was defined as something between a man and a woman related by race, unrelated by blood.



I suppose Muslims from other countries who settle here will want to be able to declare their multiple wives as dependents on their tax returns... and they can use all the same arguments that gays use ... they want them to inherit their property, they want to declare them as dependents, they want them to get their pensions....

I can see this opening the door to abuse of the institution.. and it's just a matter of time before it does. Lawyers being what they are, they will stretch the intent of any legislation redefining marriage no matter how well intended it originally was so that eventually, you'll be able to marry your cat or your favorite cartoon character...

Judy Jetson and me.. or me and the Chicken of the Sea mermaid... I wanted to marry both of them when I was 5... don't see why I can't

Do you own a ranch? You seem to have access to an unlimited supply of manure. :laugh:

[taft2012]

Gays have children, just not biologically with each other.

Wow. Maybe *YOU* should be in law enforcement. We could use a sharp mind like yours in the detective bureau.

[Missileman]

Wow. Maybe *YOU* should be in law enforcement. We could use a sharp mind like yours in the detective bureau.

Maybe I should. It's quite obvious from your posts they can't promote from within. :slap:

[cadet]

Your judgements of other people are coming thick and fast in this thread, now not only are you consigning people who are infertile to have no reason to marry, but now that inevitably "they'll be miserable, and even "no reason to live"...

So, what if some day in the future, you were to find that you are infertile, would you resign yourself to a miserable, loveless, marryless life?

Sorry for waiting Noir, i'd forgotten, and grabbed popcorn to watch the huge fight i'd caused.

And i'd adopt. So i'd have some sort of child to raise. And i don't care if the kids not genetically mine, i'd raise it to leave a legacy of hopefully respectful kids.

Hell, if i can't even find a girl to spend my life with, i'm adopting.

And honestly, I really don't see any reason why i'd marry if i didn't want kids. I'd probably go into ministry if that happened. (not enough pay for a family, but enough to take care of myself) If i can't leave kids in my place, i'm going to to my best to do something dramatic with my life. Leave as many people as possible going "wow..."

[Noir]

Sorry for waiting Noir, i'd forgotten, and grabbed popcorn to watch the huge fight i'd caused.

And i'd adopt. So i'd have some sort of child to raise. And i don't care if the kids not genetically mine, i'd raise it to leave a legacy of hopefully respectful kids.

Hell, if i can't even find a girl to spend my life with, i'm adopting.

And honestly, I really don't see any reason why i'd marry if i didn't want kids. I'd probably go into ministry if that happened. (not enough pay for a family, but enough to take care of myself) If i can't leave kids in my place, i'm going to to my best to do something dramatic with my life. Leave as many people as possible going "wow..."

You'd adopt. Like a gay couple who wanted kids.

[jimnyc]

Sorry for waiting Noir, i'd forgotten, and grabbed popcorn to watch the huge fight i'd caused.

And i'd adopt. So i'd have some sort of child to raise. And i don't care if the kids not genetically mine, i'd raise it to leave a legacy of hopefully respectful kids.

Hell, if i can't even find a girl to spend my life with, i'm adopting.

And honestly, I really don't see any reason why i'd marry if i didn't want kids. I'd probably go into ministry if that happened. (not enough pay for a family, but enough to take care of myself) If i can't leave kids in my place, i'm going to to my best to do something dramatic with my life. Leave as many people as possible going "wow..."

Hey, look at that, you did come back to answer and stand behind a post you made. Maybe your posting habits will rub off on those you respond to. :coffee:

[cadet]

You'd adopt. Like a gay couple who wanted kids.

It would be a WORST case scenario. I plan on having 5.

I've grown up around kids everywhere, I'm the oldest of 4, and i'm the oldest in my generation of great grand kids. Everyone is anywhere between 0 and 15. and there's a bunch of them. (most are around 5.) So i really like kids, and i couldn't see life without having a few.

If i'm dating a girl, i make sure she likes kids, and tell her i want alot. If they're ok with it, they're a keeper, if they hate kids, i can't date them. (Unless she's really hot, then i'll try to convince her :rolleyes:)

[Shadow]

It would be a WORST case scenario. I plan on having 5.

I've grown up around kids everywhere, I'm the oldest of 4, and i'm the oldest in my generation of great grand kids. Everyone is anywhere between 0 and 15. and there's a bunch of them. (most are around 5.) So i really like kids, and i couldn't see life without having a few.

If i'm dating a girl, i make sure she likes kids, and tell her i want alot. If they're ok with it, they're a keeper, if they hate kids, i can't date them. (Unless she's really hot, then i'll try to convince her :rolleyes:)

Talking it out ahead of time and letting your wishes be known is a very good thing...best to weed out the ones on a different path right off before you invest too much in them. Unless of course you run up against a person who goes along...figuring they can talk you out of all your wants and needs down the road (which you hinted at jokingly at the end...but been there, done that...doesn't work out generally :)). I guess a person can 'try' to talk another into going against their desires...just remember 'forever' is a very long time. And when talking and compromise dont work... just make sure you aren't saddled with a person who will go behind your back and get a vasectomy/tubeal ligation or abortion.

Just a side note...a man who loves kids and wants a family is a total turn on to a lot of women....so,your desire to have a large family is a plus. :)

[DragonStryk72]

Your argument is WRONG.... Gays do not procreate TOGETHER. They may adopt or go for artificial insemination but those are NOT natural in nature.. I think thats the point you are missing....

2 gay women can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!!!!! 2 gay men can NOT make a baby TOGETHER!!!! PERIOD!! To suggest otherwise is failing in basic physiology/anatomy!!!!!

Excuse me, he said they "have" kids, no that they can make them. Adoption occurs, and yes, the kids are better off in a gay household than staying in the system, either getting dropped in an abusive home, or maybe not getting one, period. Most if not all turn out to be heterosexual adults, they aren't "taught" to be gay, and instincts happen, along with cheerleading outfits.

BTW, anyone supporting this logic, you have just unwittingly agreed that barren women and sterile men should be denied marriage rights, even heterosexual ones. Way to go. That's where the logic goes

Football is also unnatural. Go show me in the wild, where the animals build a stadium, get two teams of guys, kill a pig to make a ball out of its hide, and make chalk lines to mark yardage. Almost everything we do in our lives is unnatural these days, like typing on the internet, so I don't see why the "it's unnatural" argument is even considered, let alone given any credence. I think we surrendered that argument about the time we started making Twinkies. It's like a clown looking at someone and going, "I think she's wearing too much makeup".

[cadet]

Talking it out ahead of time and letting your wishes be known is a very good thing...best to weed out the ones on a different path right off before you invest too much in them. Unless of course you run up against a person who goes along...figuring they can talk you out of all your wants and needs down the road (which you hinted at jokingly at the end...but been there, done that...doesn't work out generally :)). I guess a person can 'try' to talk another into going against their desires...just remember 'forever' is a very long time. And when talking and compromise dont work... just make sure you aren't saddled with a person who will go behind your back and get a vasectomy/tubeal ligation or abortion.

Just a side note...a man who loves kids and wants a family is a total turn on to a lot of women....so,your desire to have a large family is a plus. :)

I don't know about that, every girl I've told that to give's me weird looks. Plus it seems like every girl i meet doesn't know how to even HOLD a kid.

[Shadow]

I don't know about that, every girl I've told that to give's me weird looks. Plus it seems like every girl i meet doesn't know how to even HOLD a kid.

They are just immature and have not experienced much yet....give them time. Men who want a family...are willing to make a long term commitment,and have established the mindset for a give and take relationship. They also show they have compassion and are not consumed with 'self'.

Much better than the alternative.

[Noir]

Hey, look at that, you did come back to answer and stand behind a post you made. Maybe your posting habits will rub off on those you respond to. :coffee:

Well he at least answered one of them, and if I am to assume this is regarding the 'disrespect religion' thread - I decided my position needs quotation from the Catholic Church to proceed, however, at the minute 95% of my Internet time is being done from my phone at work, a simple net search didn't reveal the quotes necessary, so I have to wait until I have the time to do a proper search, which should be Monday or Tuesday depending when I get off work ^,^

But yeah it's difficult enough at times reading and replying to posts in work, never mind searching and sourcing too

[jimnyc]

Well he at least answered one of them, and if I am to assume this is regarding the 'disrespect religion' thread - I decided my position needs quotation from the Catholic Church to proceed, however, at the minute 95% of my Internet time is being done from my phone at work, a simple net search didn't reveal the quotes necessary, so I have to wait until I have the time to do a proper search, which should be Monday or Tuesday depending when I get off work ^,^

But yeah it's difficult enough at times reading and replying to posts in work, never mind searching and sourcing too

Stop using phones to surf! Your eyes are going to get used to that, then when you get to be my age, and eyesight starts to diminish, and fingers get fatter, you're going to feel lost! Besides, didn't you say you got an Ipad?

[Noir]

Stop using phones to surf! Your eyes are going to get used to that, then when you get to be my age, and eyesight starts to diminish, and fingers get fatter, you're going to feel lost! Besides, didn't you say you got an Ipad?

Pffff, and deprive you of my presence 20 hours a day? =P

Andand yeah iPad and iMac, but they're both at home and most nights I'm not getting back to 3am atm, and researching sources come well behind sleeping ^,^

[fj1200]

So it was your sincere belief that when I was speaking of the tax benefits married couples receive "post-marriage" I meant upon divorce or death? This, in the context of a discussion about the process of getting married at all...?

You're trying to lie your way out of a losing argument.

If it didn't then the point you were trying to make was utterly... pointless... Besides, my argument is solid. :dance:

[fj1200]

Gays can have kids like chimps can drive cars. Really... the logic is inescapable, two men or two women cannot have children.

Here's the problem. Once you start redefining marriage as anything else as something between one man and one woman unrelated by blood, then you throw open the door to it being anything.

I suppose Muslims from other countries who settle here will want to be able to declare their multiple wives as dependents on their tax returns... and they can use all the same arguments that gays use ... they want them to inherit their property, they want to declare them as dependents, they want them to get their pensions....

I can see this opening the door to abuse of the institution.. and it's just a matter of time before it does. Lawyers being what they are, they will stretch the intent of any legislation redefining marriage no matter how well intended it originally was so that eventually, you'll be able to marry your cat or your favorite cartoon character...

Judy Jetson and me.. or me and the Chicken of the Sea mermaid... I wanted to marry both of them when I was 5... don't see why I can't

I'm pretty sure all of this has been asked and answered. Chimps driving cars? That'll never (http://www.bouncinghedgehog.com/2009/12/03/chimpanzee-caught-driving-in-florida/)...

in December of 1963, Florida police pulled over a car that was being driven by a chimpanzee. Allegedly at 70 mph.
:eek:

I wonder if this is the same chimp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLs8D64ss0

FWIW, I said gays "have" kids not "can have" kids which have two different meanings. Even that last one isn't exclusive as plenty of gays have biological children, not by their same-sex partner but kids nontheless.

And you also seem to be unaware of my true position. I don't redefine anything, I remove all acknowledgement of marriage from legislation. As I'm aware the only beings you can declare as dependents are children which takes away your point unless you were talking about something else.

Also, does your cat or favorite cartoon character have the legal capacity to enter into a contract? Neither does a five-year old.

[Missileman]

I'm pretty sure all of this has been asked and answered. Chimps driving cars? That'll never (http://www.bouncinghedgehog.com/2009/12/03/chimpanzee-caught-driving-in-florida/)...

:eek:

I wonder if this is the same chimp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLs8D64ss0

FWIW, I said gays "have" kids not "can have" kids which have two different meanings. Even that last one isn't exclusive as plenty of gays have biological children, not by their same-sex partner but kids nontheless.

And you also seem to be unaware of my true position. I don't redefine anything, I remove all acknowledgement of marriage from legislation. As I'm aware the only beings you can declare as dependents are children which takes away your point unless you were talking about something else.

Also, does your cat or favorite cartoon character have the legal capacity to enter into a contract? Neither does a five-year old.

Amazing how easily a slippery slope can be bulldozed by a little logic.

[jimnyc]

Amazing how easily a slippery slope can be bulldozed by a little logic.

Some of the slippery slope material, or a lot of it (monkeys, jetsons and 5yr olds) is nothing to ever worry about. But I still say it'll be an issue before long when polygamists present themselves with the very same argument that gays have used and are still using, and they'll have a valid argument if that's the case. And if we come even close to allowing polygamy, then next will be the Muslims who more or less practice that already. And if we allow multiple wives and such, things that harm no one and allow these people to be with the ones they love - then how long before they expect the same protections for all involved, the "rights" that gays are fighting for? It's really not a leap at all if you draw it out. So where do we stop it? Just place our foot down when polygamists come out of the woodwork with their arguments for protections and equal rights?

[gabosaurus]

Gays can have kids like chimps can drive cars.

http://uploads.static.vosizneias.com/uploaded_images/bush-774300.jpg

[jimnyc]

http://uploads.static.vosizneias.com/uploaded_images/bush-774300.jpg

That Chimp is riding in a good 'ol fashioned truck in Texas. Here's what McChimpy likes to drive around in:

http://i.imgur.com/bTMDo.jpg?1

[gabosaurus]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif





:p

[Noir]

Some of the slippery slope material, or a lot of it (monkeys, jetsons and 5yr olds) is nothing to ever worry about. But I still say it'll be an issue before long when polygamists present themselves with the very same argument that gays have used and are still using, and they'll have a valid argument if that's the case. And if we come even close to allowing polygamy, then next will be the Muslims who more or less practice that already. And if we allow multiple wives and such, things that harm no one and allow these people to be with the ones they love - then how long before they expect the same protections for all involved, the "rights" that gays are fighting for? It's really not a leap at all if you draw it out. So where do we stop it? Just place our foot down when polygamists come out of the woodwork with their arguments for protections and equal rights?

Probably not a popular opinion - but I don't see what's so wrong with polygamy, the important factor being that all involved are consenting adults. But that's for another thread

[jimnyc]

Probably not a popular opinion - but I don't see what's so wrong with polygamy, the important factor being that all involved are consenting adults. But that's for another thread

Like I said, and your post proves this, not that I am condemning you for your opinion. 20-30 years ago someone stating as much would have been laughed out of town. Right now it's a crime, and then some support it, like yourself, that it's not an issue. This is the slope being discussed. And if ever legalized, then anyone wanting to extend rights and benefits to "anyone", can just continue to marry more and more people, and then expect the government to ante up benefits for them.

Some say that gays getting married makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage, that it's mean to be an institution of love between one man and one woman. Others say that this isn't the case, that if 2 men, or 2 women, love one another in the same manner, that they should be allowed to enjoy this institution of marriage. Now you'll have people further perverting what marriage is meant to be, and allowing multiple people to join a "couple".

Can you imagine this - a man and a woman marry. The man is bisexual, so he further marries 2 other men. So now you have 3 men and a woman. But we aren't done there, this woman is also bisexual, and marries another woman. So now this "marriage" is of 3 men and 2 women. All under one roof, and all enjoying benefits extended to them from the government.

And if allowing this, then there's no argument to stop a marriage bonanza. I can see it now, 7 men and 7 women, all married.

Where does it ever end? Or does it not ever end, because it doesn't hurt anyone and they all consent?

[Noir]

I'm sure if you look you'd find houses in the US were several men and women are co-habitanting as if married, and only aren't because of the law, so those arrangements will not change, all that would change would be they legal positions.

I just don't see what business it is of the governments to set such standards for marriage. (It gets especially silly when you consider that if a man as two women get married love each other, and want to get married, the law prevents them. But if a man and woman are married, and the man decides to cheat on his wife with a mistress, the law says that's fine...who and how is the law protecting)

[fj1200]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif

Because black people driving jet-powered go karts is the epitome of the superiority of the white race? Interesting thought process you have.

[jimnyc]

I'm sure if you look you'd find houses in the US were several men and women are co-habitanting as if married, and only aren't because of the law, so those arrangements will not change, all that would change would be they legal positions.

I just don't see what business it is of the governments to set such standards for marriage. (It gets especially silly when you consider that if a man as two women get married love each other, and want to get married, the law prevents them. But if a man and woman are married, and the man decides to cheat on his wife with a mistress, the law says that's fine...who and how is the law protecting)

That I'll agree with, let cuckoos do whatever they want outside of the eye of the government. If they can find a looney tune church that's willing to marry multiple partners, so be it. But whatever benefits and/or rights extended by the government should certainly not be extended to them. But the government will, to an extent, always be involved, as there are divorces and financial issues that sometimes need to be settled. In those cases, I don't think polygamy should be recognized. Let them be loons perhaps if that's what gets them off, but ensure they can't do so in a manner that can be abused or to benefit from.

[fj1200]

That I'll agree with, let cuckoos do whatever they want outside of the eye of the government. If they can find a looney tune church that's willing to marry multiple partners, so be it. But whatever benefits and/or rights extended by the government should certainly not be extended to them. But the government will, to an extent, always be involved, as there are divorces and financial issues that sometimes need to be settled. In those cases, I don't think polygamy should be recognized. Let them be loons perhaps if that's what gets them off, but ensure they can't do so in a manner that can be abused or to benefit from.

There should be no State benefit to being married but what you describe, government stepping in, is nothing more than contract dispute and family law when it comes to child support IMO. A legitimate government function.

[aboutime]

Here's a quiz for any member who needs to insist Gay Marriage IS Natural.

Prior to the year 2000. Name any couple of the Same sex who were legally married in the entire United States of America.

If anyone can name them, or the state where it took place.
How can it be considered Natural, according to the definition of that word, if....it never happened prior to the year 2000, or whatever year the First U.S. State granted permission????

BEN STEIN would ask....."Anyone? Anyone?"

DEFINED:
Definition of NATURAL1
: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <naturaljustice>

2
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature)b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

3
a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also :legitimate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate) (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents>b : illegitimate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegitimate) <a natural child>

4
: having an essential relation with someone or something :following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is anatural deduction from the evidence>

5
: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>

6
: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research

7
: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>

8
a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature: not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation<natural religion> <natural rights>c : having a normal or usual character <events followed theirnatural course>

9
: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>

10
a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated<natural prairie unbroken by the plow>b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <naturalturf> <natural curiosities>c : relating to or being natural food

11
a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment :unregenerate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unregenerate) <natural man>b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society

12
a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>

13
a : closely resembling an original : true to natureb : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraintc : having a form or appearance found in nature

14
a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major>b : being neither sharp nor flatc : having the pitch modified by the natural sign

15
: of an off-white or beige color

— nat·u·ral·ness <input type="button" class="au" title="Listen to the pronunciation of naturalness" style="background-image: url(http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/icons.jpg); border: 0px; cursor: pointer; height: 15px; margin: 0px 10px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; width: 13px; background-position: 0% -15px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; "> noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg See natural defined for English-language learners » (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/natural[1])

See natural defined for kids » (http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=natural)

[Missileman]

Like I said, and your post proves this, not that I am condemning you for your opinion. 20-30 years ago someone stating as much would have been laughed out of town. Right now it's a crime, and then some support it, like yourself, that it's not an issue. This is the slope being discussed. And if ever legalized, then anyone wanting to extend rights and benefits to "anyone", can just continue to marry more and more people, and then expect the government to ante up benefits for them.

Some say that gays getting married makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage, that it's mean to be an institution of love between one man and one woman. Others say that this isn't the case, that if 2 men, or 2 women, love one another in the same manner, that they should be allowed to enjoy this institution of marriage. Now you'll have people further perverting what marriage is meant to be, and allowing multiple people to join a "couple".

Can you imagine this - a man and a woman marry. The man is bisexual, so he further marries 2 other men. So now you have 3 men and a woman. But we aren't done there, this woman is also bisexual, and marries another woman. So now this "marriage" is of 3 men and 2 women. All under one roof, and all enjoying benefits extended to them from the government.

And if allowing this, then there's no argument to stop a marriage bonanza. I can see it now, 7 men and 7 women, all married.

Where does it ever end? Or does it not ever end, because it doesn't hurt anyone and they all consent?

If marriage didn't result in special benefits from the government, 7 men and 7 women in a marriage wouldn't be an issue at all.

[Missileman]

Here's a quiz for any member who needs to insist Gay Marriage IS Natural.

Prior to the year 2000. Name any couple of the Same sex who were legally married in the entire United States of America.

If anyone can name them, or the state where it took place.
How can it be considered Natural, according to the definition of that word, if....it never happened prior to the year 2000, or whatever year the First U.S. State granted permission????

BEN STEIN would ask....."Anyone? Anyone?"

Marriage isn't "natural". Even species that mate for life aren't married. BTW, humans aren't one of the species that mates for life. If they were, there would be no need for marriage.

[Noir]

Here's a quiz for any member who needs to insist Gay Marriage IS Natural.

Prior to the year 2000. Name any couple of the Same sex who were legally married in the entire United States of America.

If anyone can name them, or the state where it took place.
How can it be considered Natural, according to the definition of that word, if....it never happened prior to the year 2000, or whatever year the First U.S. State granted permission????

BEN STEIN would ask....."Anyone? Anyone?"

Who is arguing gay marriage is natural? The only post I've seen saying any sort of marriage is natural is the OP, which of itself is pretty loose to the point of meaningless. Marriage is a man made institution.

[aboutime]

Who is arguing gay marriage is natural? The only post I've seen saying any sort of marriage is natural is the OP, which of itself is pretty loose to the point of meaningless. Marriage is a man made institution.


Noir. Re-read the title of this thread. Guess you were the product of an institution. Let your parents know how you feel about how you think you got here....either by accident, or by design, and maybe a man made mistake in the heat of Unprotected passion.

[Noir]

Noir. Re-read the title of this thread. Guess you were the product of an institution. Let your parents know how you feel about how you think you got here....either by accident, or by design, and maybe a man made mistake in the heat of Unprotected passion.

Yeah, the title of the thread which is part of the OP, as I referred to in my post

No marriage, gay or otherwise, is natural.

[aboutime]

Yeah, the title of the thread which is part of the OP, as I referred to in my post

No marriage, gay or otherwise, is natural.


So, what members of your family would call your birthday, was actually an Unnatural occurance, caused by an unnatural union of a male, and a female. Even if they were not married?

[gabosaurus]

aboutime, there is nothing about you that is "natural."

[Noir]

So, what members of your family would call your birthday, was actually an Unnatural occurance, caused by an unnatural union of a male, and a female. Even if they were not married?

Naw, me being born was a natural consequence of my parents having sex (ew!) but their marriage was a man made event, made of man made vows, and defined totally by man made laws.

Edit - However, if I had been born by a process like IVF, then I would of been the product of unnatural processes.

[aboutime]

aboutime, there is nothing about you that is "natural."


Thank you. You just took the words I planned to send your way... Wanna try something else?
I've heard just about every kind of slur, four letter word, accusation, and label you, or anyone else would like to use in order to demonstrate your educational challenges.

[cadet]

Here's a quiz for any member who needs to insist Gay Marriage IS Natural.

Prior to the year 2000. Name any couple of the Same sex who were legally married in the entire United States of America.

If anyone can name them, or the state where it took place.
How can it be considered Natural, according to the definition of that word, if....it never happened prior to the year 2000, or whatever year the First U.S. State granted permission????

BEN STEIN would ask....."Anyone? Anyone?"


The only thing i understood from that, is that it's natural if it's not taught.
You're telling me that the sudden amount of gays is natural? it wasn't taught to them? are you sure?
as soon as we started to see gay on tv, it shot through the roof. I'm pretty sure that if you place a group of children and teach them in an environment that doesn't have a thing about sex in it, the boys would begin to like the girls.

I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't end up gay if it wasn't for society saying "it's normal."

[fj1200]

The only thing i understood from that, is that it's natural if it's not taught.
You're telling me that the sudden amount of gays is natural? it wasn't taught to them? are you sure?
as soon as we started to see gay on tv, it shot through the roof. I'm pretty sure that if you place a group of children and teach them in an environment that doesn't have a thing about sex in it, the boys would begin to like the girls.

I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't end up gay if it wasn't for society saying "it's normal."

That correlation is about as causative as correlating to your birth.

[Noir]

Remember when we started seeing inter-racial couples on TV, and started teaching children it was 'normal' for a man and women of different races to Marry and have children? The numbers of inter-racial relationships went through the roof, it's clearly not natural...

[logroller]

The only thing i understood from that, is that it's natural if it's not taught.
You're telling me that the sudden amount of gays is natural? it wasn't taught to them? are you sure?
as soon as we started to see gay on tv, it shot through the roof. I'm pretty sure that if you place a group of children and teach them in an environment that doesn't have a thing about sex in it, the boys would begin to like the girls.

I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't end up gay if it wasn't for society saying "it's normal."
Im pretty sure most kids don't end up gay....but even assuming the number of gays has increased since its gained more social acceptance, I'm pretty sure it's just b/c they feel more comfortable expressing themselves, not that they are learning the behavior. With all the premised gayness to which you are exposed, are you any less straight?

[jimnyc]

If marriage didn't result in special benefits from the government, 7 men and 7 women in a marriage wouldn't be an issue at all.

That's kind of what I meant in my jumbled words I called a paragraph. I blame my inability as of late to get my points across on medication!

But here's what I meant to get at. You will never completely get the government out of marriages. I'd be happy if they just announced one day that every aspect of the benefits were now gone, but it'll take a very, very long time to do away with everything. SS would need changes, retirement benefits, a million things within the IRS, all kinds of real estate crap, employment benefits, healthcare benefits, immigration... While I'm all for dissolving these things, it won't be that easy. And I can't see divorce proceedings ever going away, or at least not all of it. There is more than enough there right now to give polygamists reason to bring more into the fold, and continue to increase their benefits. Can you imagine a marriage of 7 on 7? And the amount of money, as things stand right now, that they would "benefit" from? And can you imagine what they could do/abuse with the various welfare systems?

But erase all the benefits. Take the government out of it 200%. Make it so that they can't abuse "marriage" in any way at all. Allow any church the ability to laugh at them and send them to find someone elsewhere to marry them. Then I would agree that it's not an "issue".

[aboutime]

Remember when we started seeing inter-racial couples on TV, and started teaching children it was 'normal' for a man and women of different races to Marry and have children? The numbers of inter-racial relationships went through the roof, it's clearly not natural...



Wrong Noir. This discussion IS NOT ABOUT RACE and you know it. You are merely using the same talking points most gays like to use. Dragging in, and trying to compare racial equality with those who are gay, and who claim it is the same thing.
Not so.
Good excuse. But wrong, and in no way equal to what racial discrimination is, or was.

[jimnyc]

The only thing I will say about race, is that they are in fact born that way, and it's obviously provable by scientific methods. While many gay people and their supporters want us to believe that they too were born that way, science gets a big fat F in trying to prove as much.

[aboutime]

The only thing I will say about race, is that they are in fact born that way, and it's obviously provable by scientific methods. While many gay people and their supporters want us to believe that they too were born that way, science gets a big fat F in trying to prove as much.


jimnyc. And those are the very same people who will deny that science as accurate. They need, and want scientific reasoning to fall their way, and it doesn't. So they use it. Just as Noir attempted to do. By injecting, and trying to say it is equal to racial discrimination, or racism.

How many History books exist that tell the History of Gay's in Chain-gangs, picking cotton, or being blocked from attending a public school in the South, by a crazy Governor named Wallace?

[Missileman]

The only thing i understood from that, is that it's natural if it's not taught.
You're telling me that the sudden amount of gays is natural? it wasn't taught to them? are you sure?
as soon as we started to see gay on tv, it shot through the roof. I'm pretty sure that if you place a group of children and teach them in an environment that doesn't have a thing about sex in it, the boys would begin to like the girls.

I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't end up gay if it wasn't for society saying "it's normal."

There have been gays as long as there have been human beings, it's not a "new" thing.

[aboutime]

There have been gays as long as there have been human beings, it's not a "new" thing.


Right you are Missileman. Just as there have been Prostitutes. And none of them had a Gene that made them do what they do.

[Missileman]

Right you are Missileman. Just as there have been Prostitutes. And none of them had a Gene that made them do what they do.

That's a whopper of a non-sequitur you just posted...trophy-sized even...mount that thing over a mantle!

[logroller]

Right you are Missileman. Just as there have been Prostitutes. And none of them had a Gene that made them do what they do.

Is there a heterosexual gene???

[Noir]

Wrong Noir. This discussion IS NOT ABOUT RACE and you know it. You are merely using the same talking points most gays like to use. Dragging in, and trying to compare racial equality with those who are gay, and who claim it is the same thing.
Not so.
Good excuse. But wrong, and in no way equal to what racial discrimination is, or was.

No, not wrong, because the point was to (satirically given cadets post) compare correlation of causation and normalisation, not the actual topics of gay marriage and inter-ratial marriage.


The only thing I will say about race, is that they are in fact born that way, and it's obviously provable by scientific methods. While many gay people and their supporters want us to believe that they too were born that way, science gets a big fat F in trying to prove as much.

One (totally antidotal) story thats convinced me slightly of the 'born that way' case is one of my cousins. He is currently about 12, and so obviously gay its impossible not to notice. Though he is not (as far as i know) sexually aware, he has things like his fav boy in boy-bands etc, and his mannerisms, the way he talks, walks etc are all totally camp.

But the thing that strikes me about him is his brothers and sisters, he has several older and younger and they are all (for want of a better term) normal, seemingly hetrosexuals. They've all been raised the same way, in an ultra-chirstian household (i.e. anyone who doesn't go to their church is going to hell, which is about everyone on the planet bar 40 people) so why is only one of them seemingly gay, if it was nurture surly there would be more. There must be something in-build for that kinda result, imo.

[fj1200]

Here's a quiz for any member who needs to insist Gay Marriage IS Natural.

Are you even paying attention to the posts in the thread?


Noir. Re-read the title of this thread. Guess you were the product of an institution. Let your parents know how you feel about how you think you got here....either by accident, or by design, and maybe a man made mistake in the heat of Unprotected passion.

The posit presented in the OP has been debunked IMO unless you want to take another crack at it. Which, of course, should be some fine entertainment.

[DragonStryk72]

Some of the slippery slope material, or a lot of it (monkeys, jetsons and 5yr olds) is nothing to ever worry about. But I still say it'll be an issue before long when polygamists present themselves with the very same argument that gays have used and are still using, and they'll have a valid argument if that's the case. And if we come even close to allowing polygamy, then next will be the Muslims who more or less practice that already. And if we allow multiple wives and such, things that harm no one and allow these people to be with the ones they love - then how long before they expect the same protections for all involved, the "rights" that gays are fighting for? It's really not a leap at all if you draw it out. So where do we stop it? Just place our foot down when polygamists come out of the woodwork with their arguments for protections and equal rights?

Um... and? I mean, I'd never go in for polygamy, The concept of trying to please more than one woman at the same time is just mind-boggling to me, even moreso spanned out over a lifetime (Can you imagine trying to keep straight 5 different anniversairies? And that time of the month when you have 3 wives who've synced up?). However, why is it automatically an evil that must be stopped? Keep in mind, the reason for the abuses of polygamy are based around the point that it can only occur in the shadows currently, or in countries that have serious spousal abuse issues regardless of the number of wives involved. If brought into the light, it would curb stomp most of the abuse right there, by the simple point of all involved being in the open about it, and being able to take grievances to court. They also would have to abide by state laws at that point in order to get any of the tax/insurance benefits for their rather enormous family. This means having to abide by the age of consent laws that every state already has on the books.

Is being polygamous a good decision? No, I don't think so. However, polygamy, in and of itself, is not evil, and does not impinge the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of anyone involved, whether or not we think it's weird or icky.

Now, I would like to note that this is actually a proper If we ___, then later we'll ____. Too often, you get some chucklenuts who devoutly believes that it's all going to lead to sanctioned bestiality, which is just silly in the extreme. Polygamy getting legalized, or generally accepted by society is an actual possibility. It could be handled well, but I don't see that happening with our current leadership.

[jimnyc]

Um... and? I mean, I'd never go in for polygamy, The concept of trying to please more than one woman at the same time is just mind-boggling to me, even moreso spanned out over a lifetime (Can you imagine trying to keep straight 5 different anniversairies? And that time of the month when you have 3 wives who've synced up?). However, why is it automatically an evil that must be stopped? Keep in mind, the reason for the abuses of polygamy are based around the point that it can only occur in the shadows currently, or in countries that have serious spousal abuse issues regardless of the number of wives involved. If brought into the light, it would curb stomp most of the abuse right there, by the simple point of all involved being in the open about it, and being able to take grievances to court. They also would have to abide by state laws at that point in order to get any of the tax/insurance benefits for their rather enormous family. This means having to abide by the age of consent laws that every state already has on the books.

Is being polygamous a good decision? No, I don't think so. However, polygamy, in and of itself, is not evil, and does not impinge the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of anyone involved, whether or not we think it's weird or icky.

Now, I would like to note that this is actually a proper If we ___, then later we'll ____. Too often, you get some chucklenuts who devoutly believes that it's all going to lead to sanctioned bestiality, which is just silly in the extreme. Polygamy getting legalized, or generally accepted by society is an actual possibility. It could be handled well, but I don't see that happening with our current leadership.

Plain and simple, society has been going down the shitter, slowly but surely. Imagine little Johnny at school on "bring your father to school day" and he brings in 7 fathers. Or little Johnny wondering why he wakes up every morning to 3 mothers when none of his friends have such a family. Or the poor kid is filling out some forms for school and it asks for a parents name, but there's only one line. Or little Annie grows up and is now getting married, and she'll have 4 fathers walking her down the aisle?

I'm personally of the belief that our government, and today's society, is slowly making sure that we leave this country worse off for our children and grandchildren. I'm sad and embarrassed that "family", what it is and what it meant, is changing so quickly and so dramatically.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, this is just my take and my personal feelings about today's society. I guess I'm still too old fashioned in my beliefs of what a family entailed, and maybe I'm an ass for not seeing or agreeing that things change. Maybe I am close minded, I dunno. But I expect you guys to stick to your beliefs and principles, and I plan on sticking with the things that my grandfather and father instilled in me about these things. Doesn't make me any more wrong or right than anyone else, just my 2 cents.

[fj1200]

^Oh come on now, let's not go overboard or anything.

[DragonStryk72]

Plain and simple, society has been going down the shitter, slowly but surely. Imagine little Johnny at school on "bring your father to school day" and he brings in 7 fathers. Or little Johnny wondering why he wakes up every morning to 3 mothers when none of his friends have such a family. Or the poor kid is filling out some forms for school and it asks for a parents name, but there's only one line. Or little Annie grows up and is now getting married, and she'll have 4 fathers walking her down the aisle?

I'm personally of the belief that our government, and today's society, is slowly making sure that we leave this country worse off for our children and grandchildren. I'm sad and embarrassed that "family", what it is and what it meant, is changing so quickly and so dramatically.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, this is just my take and my personal feelings about today's society. I guess I'm still too old fashioned in my beliefs of what a family entailed, and maybe I'm an ass for not seeing or agreeing that things change. Maybe I am close minded, I dunno. But I expect you guys to stick to your beliefs and principles, and I plan on sticking with the things that my grandfather and father instilled in me about these things. Doesn't make me any more wrong or right than anyone else, just my 2 cents.

Oh please, that's the least of the trouble. Let's be really honest about the deterioration we're witnessing: It's being pulled off every time we make people blameless for their actions. I mean seriously, when is it ever just somebody's fault they were a greedy asshole? When the own a company. We've completely removed personal responsibility from the equation, and our leaders now make absolutely no attempt to demonstrate any themselves. This is completely regardless of anything to do with marraige, which has been going strong lo these past 12 millenia, despite wars, rapes, bullshit marriages in Vegas, and everything else. All sense of culpability is gone from the government, with Obama leading the pack, repeatedly blaming everything on the admin that came before. You think Lincoln wanted to come into the Presidency with the country going to war with itself? Of course not, but did you hear him spend every waking moment bitching about his predecessors that led them to it? No, he sacked up, and dealt with the bag of snakes he had on him.

Gay/Bi/Straight, Monogamous/Polygamous, these aren't really morals. They're just a part of someone's life. It's what they do with that life that should matter.

Also, you overestimate the attraction of polygamous marriage. Think about, you ever watched a guy try to juggle two women? Yeah, it almost never ends well, does it?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A man must first stand up for his principles against hell and high water come what may! If those principles are based upon CHRISTIAN MORALITY and/or the ideals that this nation was founded on then that man stands well. If one takes the attitude that government knows best or should be allowed to decide our morals then we have what we have today. A completely ffed up state of affairs rapidly going from bad to worse!
There is not a man alive that I will bow to. No brag just a fact. I've lived my entire life that way and will not change. I put my faith in God, my stand on my principles and to hell with those that try to tell me to be PC or accepting of that which I know to be wrong! This world is growing ever more evil everyday and it requires a f-that attitude about most of whats trying to be forced on us! Either stand with the fighters or get the hell out of their way when the fight comes.
Rest assured that it is coming sooner or later. For we have been taught to be sheep long enough to give our opponents the courage to force the fight IMHO.
Any government or man alive that tries to tell me to abandone my principles and yield to his will first have to beat my ass. Just that damn simple..Some folks dont play dat shat...Why should we?? -Tyr

[logroller]

A man must first stand up for his principles against hell and high water come what may! If those principles are based upon CHRISTIAN MORALITY and/or the ideals that this nation was founded on then that man stands well. If one takes the attitude that government knows best or should be allowed to decide our morals then we have what we have today. A completely ffed up state of affairs rapidly going from bad to worse!
There is not a man alive that I will bow to. No brag just a fact. I've lived my entire life that way and will not change. I put my faith in God, my stand on my principles and to hell with those that try to tell me to be PC or accepting of that which I know to be wrong! This world is growing ever more evil everyday and it requires a f-that attitude about most of whats trying to be forced on us! Either stand with the fighters or get the hell out of their way when the fight comes.
Rest assured that it is coming sooner or later. For we have been taught to be sheep long enough to give our opponents the courage to force the fight IMHO.
Any government or man alive that tries to tell me to abandone my principles and yield to his will first have to beat my ass. Just that damn simple..Some folks dont play dat shat...Why should we?? -Tyr
Government out of morality issues; Christian or otherwise-- Gotta be honest Tyr, that's pretty strong support FOR either allowing same-sex marriage or abandoning legal marriage altogether. Do you believe we a born with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; that governments are instituted to protect these rights? That's what you're talking about, right-- doing your own thing without interference from government, so long as it doesn't keep another from doing theirs-- That should go both ways, should it not?

[taft2012]

And if ever legalized, then anyone wanting to extend rights and benefits to "anyone", can just continue to marry more and more people, and then expect the government to ante up benefits for them.


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/26/world/african-women-in-france-battling-polygamy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


Ivry, a Paris suburb, has some 1,500 African immigrants, and two out of three families are polygamous. "Consider the costs," a town official said. "One husband with three wives and a team of children may need government health care, education and subsidies for up to 20 people. Is this fair?"

It was mainly the Socialist Government in the 1980's that quietly admitted more than one wife per husband as part of its family-reunification policy. The argument was that immigrants had the right to a "normal" family life.

As a result, many immigrants brought not just their wives but as their income improved, they went home to buy new, young brides, often still teen-agers. Once the women gave birth in France, mother and child were allowed to stay.

"We've been telling the French for 10 years that this was wrong, that polygamy couldn't work here because we saw the problems," said Madine Diallo, who was born in Mali and now heads an African women's health and family planning group.

[Missileman]

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/26/world/african-women-in-france-battling-polygamy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

How's that any different than the guy (in Florida?) who's fathered 30 kids by a bunch of women, married to none of them, paying some joke amount of support leaving taxpayers to pay for raising his kids?

[fj1200]

It was mainly the Socialist Government...
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/26/world/african-women-in-france-battling-polygamy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Well there's your problem.

[fj1200]

A man must first stand up for his principles against hell and high water come what may! If those principles are based upon CHRISTIAN MORALITY and/or the ideals that this nation was founded on then that man stands well. If one takes the attitude that government knows best or should be allowed to decide our morals then we have what we have today. A completely ffed up state of affairs rapidly going from bad to worse!
There is not a man alive that I will bow to. No brag just a fact. I've lived my entire life that way and will not change. I put my faith in God, my stand on my principles and to hell with those that try to tell me to be PC or accepting of that which I know to be wrong! This world is growing ever more evil everyday and it requires a f-that attitude about most of whats trying to be forced on us! Either stand with the fighters or get the hell out of their way when the fight comes.
Rest assured that it is coming sooner or later. For we have been taught to be sheep long enough to give our opponents the courage to force the fight IMHO.
Any government or man alive that tries to tell me to abandone my principles and yield to his will first have to beat my ass. Just that damn simple..Some folks dont play dat shat...Why should we?? -Tyr

What are you even talking about?

[Voted4Reagan]

Simply put.....

Gay Couples now have to pay the MARRIAGE TAX...and they have to pay for DIVORCE ATTORNEYS, ALIMONY and CHILD SUPPORT.

They'll also have to file JOINT RETURNS at the higher federal Rate...

The old way is looking pretty damn good from a Financial perspective....

:lol::lol::lol:

[jimnyc]

^Oh come on now, let's not go overboard or anything.


Oh please, that's the least of the trouble. Let's be really honest about the deterioration we're witnessing:

No offense gents, but it was my opinion, whether you agree or not. And quite frankly, it's the dismissive attitude about what's happening to our society that is one of the largest problems.

[fj1200]

No offense gents, but it was my opinion, whether you agree or not. And quite frankly, it's the dismissive attitude about what's happening to our society that is one of the largest problems.

I think DS had a good take on it instead of the marriage issue being the focal point.

[jimnyc]

I think DS had a good take on it instead of the marriage issue being the focal point.

I went off on a bit of a tangent, but my issue is with the overall decay of society. Polygamy prompted my last few posts, but it can be said in general about a lot of things in society. I think most good things start at "home" and I think home is something that will be a distant memory as we know it if we continue down this path. But that's "me". I admit I have an old fashioned idea of what home should be, what marriage should be and how kids should be raised.

[fj1200]

... what marriage should be and how kids should be raised.

It seems we've come full circle.


Gays have kids.

:poke:

[jimnyc]

It seems we've come full circle.



:poke:

I'd rather see a couple of kids raised in a family with just 2 parents, I suppose even if they're gay, as opposed to multiple. I mean, we call our fathers "father" or "dad". What would these kids call them if there were say 3 involved? Dad1, Dad2 and Dad 3? I suppose that doesn't matter though. Funny thing is, with a large polygamous family in mind, with several children, suddenly a gay marriage with a few children sounds much better.

[tailfins]

...by the same logic, is marrying a woman who you know is barren, just as unnatural?

That's a nice job picking apart a weak argument. I'm against gay marriage because it trivializes marriage. Granted there are other things that trivialize marriage, but it reaches a point where society says "why bother getting married". We then literally have a bastardized society.

[aboutime]

Is there a heterosexual gene???


Why don't you tell us whether there is, or isn't. Then we'll all know. Patronizing isn't your best attitude.

[logroller]

Why don't you tell us whether there is, or isn't. Then we'll all know. Patronizing isn't your best attitude.
You begged the question, not I. Im not aware of one, but that doesn't mean there isn't-- hence the question. Perhaps if you took th time to answer the question, you'd see the logical fallacy in your reasoning--Gays aren't "born that way" any more than straights are. Instead you continue with ad hominem attacks-- which is another logical fallacy. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm patronizing you; that's your own insecurity.

[logroller]

That's a nice job picking apart a weak argument. I'm against gay marriage because it trivializes marriage. Granted there are other things that trivialize marriage, but it reaches a point where society says "why bother getting married". We then literally have a bastardized society.
I'm against divorce because it trivializes marriage--IMO. But to say a child born out of wedlock is a bastard...disagree. I believe a nuclear man-wife family presents a proven dynamic for success which is more difficult to attain in a broken or non-traditional family setting; but those traditions are inherently individualistic pursuits, not socially bestowed by legitmate marriage.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Government out of morality issues; Christian or otherwise-- Gotta be honest Tyr, that's pretty strong support FOR either allowing same-sex marriage or abandoning legal marriage altogether. Do you believe we a born with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; that governments are instituted to protect these rights? That's what you're talking about, right-- doing your own thing without interference from government, so long as it doesn't keep another from doing theirs-- That should go both ways, should it not?

I truly do not care what gays do in their private lives, let 'em orgy themselves to death if they like. I do care when they attempt to subvert our marraige and its meaning. However all that goes on the back burner because(its just a diversion) our government is busy attempting to usurp our Constitution in various other ways. Attempting to drasticly change the relationship between we citizens and our government. Of course as citizens the gays have the right to push for the causes that they believe in.Just as those opposed to that agenda have every right to object to it without being labelled as bigots regardless of why they object....Really does not matter because in the end sooner or later our government will start telling us absolutely what to do, how to do it and impose drastic punishments for daring to object in any way..-Tyr

[fj1200]

I truly do not care what gays do in their private lives, let 'em orgy themselves to death if they like. I do care when they attempt to subvert our marraige and its meaning. However all that goes on the back burner because(its just a diversion) our government is busy attempting to usurp our Constitution in various other ways. Attempting to drasticly change the relationship between we citizens and our government. Of course as citizens the gays have the right to push for the causes that they believe in.Just as those opposed to that agenda have every right to object to it without being labelled as bigots regardless of why they object....Really does not matter because in the end sooner or later our government will start telling us absolutely what to do, how to do it and impose drastic punishments for daring to object in any way..-Tyr

:rolleyes: Nothing like throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the argument. Nevertheless, if you weren't hanging onto government validation of your beliefs and relationships over those of others you might realize that marriage shouldn't be defined by an entity that has competing constituencies.

[Noir]

I truly do not care what gays do in their private lives, let 'em orgy themselves to death if they like. I do care when they attempt to subvert our marraige and its meaning. However all that goes on the back burner because(its just a diversion) our government is busy attempting to usurp our Constitution in various other ways. Attempting to drasticly change the relationship between we citizens and our government. Of course as citizens the gays have the right to push for the causes that they believe in.Just as those opposed to that agenda have every right to object to it without being labelled as bigots regardless of why they object....Really does not matter because in the end sooner or later our government will start telling us absolutely what to do, how to do it and impose drastic punishments for daring to object in any way..-Tyr

Nothing subverts marriage, or it's 'meaning' like divorce, nothing comes even close.

[taft2012]

Remember when we started seeing inter-racial couples on TV, and started teaching children it was 'normal' for a man and women of different races to Marry and have children? The numbers of inter-racial relationships went through the roof, it's clearly not natural...

Theoretically then, if we start broadcasting television programs with positive incestuous role models, our incestuous population will expand along similar lines.

[logroller]

Nothing subverts marriage, or it's 'meaning' like divorce, nothing comes even close.
It's all that lib Henry VIII's fault...and Obama's, of course. :p