For or Against Gay Marriage

This isn't the 1960's. No one is saying you should do anything, just because it feels good. No one should be prejudiced and actively discriminate, just because it is fun. Of course, something feeling good is not a reason to avoid it either.
 
OceanHippie, what are you thinking? There are innocent victims of disease, and there are guilty victims of disease. When it comes to AIRAB, heterosexuals are the innocent victims..err..sometimes. Gays are the guilty victims of that disease, always.:rolleyes:
 
Men that only molest boys are gay pedophiles........If they molested boys and girls then they would just be pedophiles.....Almost every priest that was convicted molested boys...........
 
They are choices, I agree. But they are not choices that can be bred into your genetic base. And I think I might have fumbled on my first post:

I am saying that they can not be born gay, but I am not saying that in your younger years, you can't harness the need to or want to be gay. You could develop that when you're one, two, or three. And, in some cases, it could just depend on who you've grown up around, but you can't be born gay. It's a choice. We can all be born with some aversion to one sex, but we can't be born gay.

Furthermore, in a land where we mix business with pleasure, family with business, love with death, pride with acceptance, why can't we mix religion and democracy? I mean, everything else does... Why can't those two things follow suit?

Case:

We claim to be a nation that allows GOD to rule over us (As stated in our pledge of allegiance "One nation under GOD..."). However, we are fighting for gay rights? The bible states that man and woman is all that should be allowed.

And now, people are voting on the privilege.

Now that's a case of government mixing democracy with religion, yet you see nothing wrong with it? Or do you only see something wrong with people thinking that it should not be allowed?

So therefor, we're doing something wrong. It is nearly impossible to not mix those two things. And if you want it completely stopped, don't talk to me about it... I can't change a thing in this nation.
 
You really lack reading comprehension, don't you. I don't care whether you come back or not. My point is that you are full of hot air. You keep saying the debate is over, but like all of your expressed points, they fall flat entirely on their own. You're your own worst enemy in a debate.

"Filled with sound and fury but signifying nothing."
 
Explanations are required in many non-traditional hetero families with stepkiRAB, half-siblings, etc. Kinda defeats the purpose of marriage for straights too don't you think?
 
Don't let my name fool you. I am, in reality, Dr. Jekyl to JPSartre's Mr Hyde. :)


Do humanists believe that these acts of charity should be coerced from the population or freely given?

I would agree with your assessment.

I'm interested in how one would go about "sharing" the resources possessed by another. What mechanism do humanists believe should be employed to assure compliance?

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough in my query. How does one justly distribute the fruits of ANOTHER'S efforts? For example, if 10 men are given the task of farming a 100 acre plot, but only 9 of those men actually contribute their efforts to farm the plot. Do all 10 men share equally in the harvest?

Given humanist philosophy, I don't see how one could be anything but a socialist, but the same can probably be said about Christians, too. :)

I'm aware that there are as many forms of humanism as there are colors in the rainbow, including secular and religious humanists.

I know that Canada doesn't share the same aversion to the worRAB "socialism or communism" that we have in the States. Living just north of Canada in the Detroit subs, I have lots of daily contact with Canadians. (I'm a big fan of Ontarians and a detractor of French Canadians, in general.) Our histories and philosophies ARE different. While Canadians seem to be more collectivist in their thinking, Americans tend to stress individuality.

So, there is hope that humanists aren't totally committed to wealth redistribution, eh? :)


I am fine and hope you are the same. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
 
Then you should take that up with the appropriate authorities, not with me. I don't control the legal hauling weight rules.



You mean the same way interracial marraiges fought their way across the country? :rolleyes: So you DO admit it will happen. heheheh



Majority oppression is also responsbile for the blood of millions. Majority oppression is responsible for denying minorities rights in the past. Majority oppression is responsible for years of slavery. Majority oppression is responsible (party in theory) for the civil war. Majority oppression is responsible for illegal internment of millions of Japanese. Majority oppression is not a viable, nor a just reason for denying rights, unless you wish to repeat the atroicites of the past and be bathed in the blood of innocents.
 
There's no problem. Eddie asked, I answered.


I don't understand the question. Eddie said there's no corresponding word in Swedish.

The definitions I listed would no longer apply if gay unions are recognized as "marriages".


You're extending the popular argument against gay marriage into my comments. I do not think it would demean what I have. It would certainly call for redefinition of several terms that have been used in the English language for hundreRAB of years. There is no need for that.

Grant gay couples ALL the benefits given to married couples and call them gay couples, just like they are. There might even be a need (for discussion purposes only) to say two men make up a "male couple" and two woman make up a "female couple".


It doesn't.


Because marriage is defined as a union between a male and female.


I believe I've already put forth some reasons.
 
If society is not pushed by those who want their rights recognized, it would never get there on its own. I remember when Glbt people were just asking for some basic protections from housing to medical visitation for their spouses. Bigotted politicians refused to even allow these propositions to come up for a vote. So now that courts have ruled that gay people cannot be denied protections guaranteed by the constitution, you hear people complain about the meaning of a word.

Well, if it walks like a duck, talk likes a duck and looks like a duck, why should we call it a chicken?



If gay people are to recieve federal benefits, yes they do.



Those governments even admit that they are unequal. And what has happened? Several of those governments have now moved to allow gays the right to marriage recognition.



1: So we should deny rights because it may screw up statistics?

2: How exactly do the worRAB "husband," "wife,' etc. become redefined? A husband will always be a husband regardless of the gender of his spouse.

and 3: Adoptions are allowed by same-sex couples already (in most places). How does that redefine the worRAB mother or father?



How large does a minority have to be in order to have their rights recognized under the constitution?



ThousanRAB of years, huh? So those people that believed that marriage was man and property (since the woman was property at the beginning), or man and wives (which still occurs today) didn't actually have marriages?



Gays and lesbians already have their marriages recognized by their churches. The SUpreme Court has ruled that separate, but equal institutions are unconstitutional. Why should we now settle for something other than marriage?
 
I could just as easily say your logic is flawed because you are a Conservative, but I won't lower myself to your standarRAB. Blindly follow, blindly follow ? Try to remember this historic date, and how men gave their lives on the beaches of Utah and Omaha, and that they did so with every American in mind. To think elsewise, would sully the honour with which they sacrificed their lives.
 
Hydra said:
Did your state even have an initiative on the ballot? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question. I already know that it didn't because every state that had such an initiative passed it. The closest margin of victory was 60/40 in my home state of Michigan.
Click to expand...
 
Tell the dozen straight guy frienRAB who got hugs from me last night that I hate straight men and they will laugh in your face. One of my two closest frienRAB is a straight guy. I have two straight little brothers, a whole slew of uncles and work acquaintances.

Yes, my marriage was the pits as I married a dud. A major whoops in my past that now stanRAB corrected.

From where do you make this accusation that I hate men? Because I choose to remain single? Because I believe woman should have a right to choose all things in her life? If so, this accusation says a lot more about your feelings about women than it does mine about men.



I don't. I don't even judge all conservatives by you - good thing, or I may have nothing to do with them.



He isn't my boyfriend. He is a man, a friend, and a co-parent. He is honest, hard-working, kind, generous, supportive, strong, talented, gifted and completely devoted to my son.

I am not settling for him - the man is one our live's greatest blessings. I would not trade him in for a straight man because he has more than proven his merit, and I don't use people like kleenex.



No - it isn't. I was raised by a straight man. I know lots of people who were. Some of those daRAB absolutely rocked - but not more than my son's mentor.



I think all children need close, positive examples from both sexes. I don't think it has to be the Cleavers, though. Only the truly unimaginative think that way - and if there is one thing kiRAB are not - they are not unimaginative.



A-HA! :idea:

So you are talking about creating living, breathing stereotypes.

Can't a father teach his daughter sports? Or teach her to cook? What if mom really hits that ball better?

My brother AND my sister play catch with my son. My sister and sister in law teach him about cooking (he likes to cook). My sister takes him to hockey games. His baseball coaches are women. I teach him about music and take him to concerts and museums. My mom teaches him about art and takes him on hikes. His mentor teaches him about fishing, building and auto mechanics and takes him to baseball and football games. I take him on road trips and camping and fishing. We all go to watch him play baseball, basketball, football, drums, participate in science fairs and dance recitals. I talk to him about faith, politics and the Bible. I also make him help with the boring stuff - room cleaning, chores, laundry. His mentor's partner teaches him cooking and helps him with math. My sister and mom teach him about poetry.

That is just a sampling. He gets all kind of nurture, bonding and learns many things, from many people. We don't need your gender roles.
 
Here are several more arguments against gay marriage: Allowing gay marriage would, among other things:



Further weaken the family unit, the best defense against a government that continues to encroach in our lives more and more.



Encourage more people to continue their homosexual behavior rather than to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.


Will encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kiRAB at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, gay bowel syndrome, and sexually transmitted diseases.



Will put more children at risk of being put into unfit householRAB as adoption agencies abandon the current practice of favoring married householRAB and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless householRAB.


Homosexual householRAB are more prone to domestic violence.

Pit the law and our government against the millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Create grounRAB for further attacks on the freedom of speech and religion.
 
Back
Top