| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| Mort Asplundt |
| ||
|
There is nothing wrong with not supporting gay marriage. There is nothing inherently virtuous about changing the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage and granting the right to do so to homosexuals. The argument for gay marriage is framed as granting a basic human right to a group of people who do not currently enjoy that right. Never mind that marriage was conceived to provide for nuclear families and since a man and a woman can procreate together, it was naturally assigned as a contract between man and woman. The gay marriage lobby is, of course, not satisfied with the designation of "civil union" because they say it does not, in fact, grant them equal status to a married man and woman. It is not the functional trappings of a marriage that they want. The goal of the gay lobby is to achieve absolute, across-the-board "equality." This includes equality of social acceptance and equality in the way the culture views their relationships, vis a vis heterosexual relationships. This is all good and well but their tactics and the tone created by their crusade to change the definition of marriage is heavy-handed, and you can not force a culture to change such a fundamental tradition overnight. At the end of the day, this is a fight between traditional values that undergird the very fabric of society - in our case, Judeo-Christian mores, although the five major religions of the world also define marriage the same way - and the secular-progressive value of "equality." In the world-view of secular progressives and, in fact, most young people as they've been spoon-fed this ethos since birth, "equality" trumps all other values. Therefore, someone fighting for the traditional view of marriage and the perceived societal benefits that it carries is seen as unethical, backwards and bigoted to challenge the most revered, most fundamental and virtuous virtue of them all - "equality." This is why people who support gay marriage trumpet from their Facebook pages and whatever other platform they can such aggressive, disdainful vitriol against the supposed cavemen that dare to oppose gay marriage. In their view, it is unethical, backward and bigoted to do so. How could it be anything else? Recognize, though, that this debate is between two opposing ideologies, each with its own claims of virtue. The person who opposes gay marriage is no less virtuous for doing so. They feel their beliefs, encoded in the Bible and other religious texts, benefit both society and the individual. In the vast majority of cases it is not out of hatred or raw disdain for gays that they must "keep them down" by prohibiting them the right to "marry." If that were the case, would they not attempt to deny them the right to a civil union as well? "Equality" certainly has its place as a virtue, too, but to hold it up as the be-all-end-all of virtues creates plenty of chaos and hatred in the world. We need look no further than the genocidal mania that characterized the Communist movements of the twentieth century. Equality, in this case as in so many others, is used to drive a wedge between people and their traditional beliefs. Suddenly, since your religious beliefs do not provide for absolute, blind "equality" among every conceivable type of person, lifestyle, or gender in any and all cases, you are bigoted and must change your worldview and bow to the almighty virtue of "equality." Failure to do so could be hazardous to your health. Personally, I think the tide toward gay marriage becoming legalized is an almost irresistible force. As long as it is framed as a matter of "equality," the battle to maintain the traditional nature of marriage will be too difficult. Too many young people have been taught that any social convention that violates "equality" in some manner is backward and fundamentally unjust, even as "equality" is such a malleable and easy-to-manipulate concept. Whereas I believe the traditional definition of marriage has been beneficial to societies and cultures heretofore, I believe the culture in America will change it to keep up with the prevailing zeitgeist of the times. My only real problem with that is that the gay marriage issue, like so many others, is yet another calculated wedge the left has used to separate Americans from their traditional Judeo-Christian value system. Once they have gay marriage firmly shored up, they will move on to another cause celebre until they have replaced the entire culture with a state-worshiping flock of empty-headed, utterly dependent sheep. It is a scary proposition and I really hope they do not succeed. As has been written in communist playbooks, the greatest obstacles to taking over a nation are the morality and the religious beliefs of its populace. |
| sozusagen |
| ||
Problem is that the legal contract assumes a balanced and reciprocal relationship between two equal partners. Polygamy violates that if one of the parties has multiple spouses. If all married people have the exact same number of spouses as all their spouses, then it works. Otherwise it doesn't. And the only way you can achieve that at all times is if the maximum number of spouses is 1. Polygamist marriages are very common, but only in societies that regards women as inferior and subordinate to their husbands. If you look at polygamist marriages in the US, past (LDS) and present (FLDS) the same is true. It only works if women are reduced to cattle. Of course you are entitled to be in support of that but it violates the Constitution so you're probably not going to get your way. Monogamist same-sex marriage on the other hand is fully consistent with the Constitution. |
| gaydar |
| ||
It's a spectrum, much like sex and gender. We tend to think there are only two sexes, male and female, but that's not true. Some people are born with external male genitalia but internal female plumbing. Some are born the opposite. Some people have more than just XX or XY for their chromosomes, there are several genetic disorders with three sex chromosomes. So there are shades of gray. Sexuality is the same thing. Some only like women, some only like men. Some people might be attracted to some women and some men. Some are more gay or more straight than others. For example, even though I am a straight male, I notice men's muscles. Likewise many women admit to finding other women beautiful. Of course this is different than wanting to have gay sex, but I think there are people at every level between gay, straight, and bisexual. |
| tempest |
| ||
Good point. I tend to discount the religious point of view as ridiculous but if people wholeheartedly believe that stuff, then of course they think it is the right and virtuous way. Just as I think equality is right and virtuous. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
There are gays, straights, and bisexuals. There are no blurring of the lines in my opinion. You fall into one of those 3 categories. Admittedly, a lot of gay people say that so and so might be gay. Not sure what he reasoning is or why they really care. I think that sometimes the more gays make others out to be gay they feel more validated. Who knows. That said, I pick up signals from "straight" guys all the time (mannerisms and things they say mind you, not flirtations). Is it my imagination? Maybe. Are there a lot of gay men who are married? Why yes there are. YOu can be married to a woman, have children with a woman, and still be gay. I know and have been with a lot of married men like this. (keep in mind it is about physical and emotional attraction, not who you have sex with). This may be one reason divorce rates are so high...that gays get married to the opposite sex because they think their same sex attractions will go away, or they can otherwise be happy. Ulitimately, it leads them to unfulfilled lives. |
| Bah |
| ||
|
Wow. A well written post where you even concede that gay marriage will succeed at some point. Show that it is a matter of equality. And then you root against it because the left will then move on to another cause. You liken this to communism. You obviously support a traditional Judeo-Christian value system. And then refer to the type of people that support gay marriage and other progressive causes as "state-worshiping flock of empty-headed, utterly dependent sheep." Personally I feel anyone that is part of any religeon are worshiping flock of empty-headed, utterly dependent sheep. |
| sozusagen |
| ||
Second paragraph in, and this is where I stopped reading. It doesn't fucking matter why marriage was "conceived". In fact, it predates the U.S. Constitution by many thousand years, it predates all religious texts known today and it wasn't at all intended to be between man and woman but between man and women (plural). Regardless of your ethnic heritage, the fact is that some of your ancestors were polygamists who considered women inferior creatures and traded them like property. |
| deep thoughts by jack handy |
| ||
|
"It's tradition", and "it's always been this way" are probably the worst reasons to do something. |
| Mort Asplundt |
| ||
Second paragraph in, and this is where I stopped reading. It doesn't f*cking matter why marriage was "conceived".[/quote] Well, I beg to differ with you there. Marriage was conceived, and has heretofore been, a device to create nuclear families. By and large, that is exactly what marriage has achieved over the millenia. In so doing, it has provided the most basic societal unit. This is no small thing. It is part-and-parcel of how a society replicates itself and survives on this Earth. With the breakdown of the family, we see skyrocketing crime rates, for starters, and the very demise of civilizations when taken to the extreme. I'm not saying it should not be changed, under any circumstances, but I certainly understand the argument for keeping it the way it is. |
| Flagpole |
| ||
Many men give the women in their lives a good Rogering in this manner, brother. It's not just a gay thing. |
| Tort |
| ||
Seriously. Travel to brazil, you think all those 'virgins' down there are 'total virgins'? A lot of heteros engage in anal and oral sex in order to maintain their chastity. |
| D of D |
| ||
Many men give the women in their lives a good Rogering in this manner, brother. It's not just a gay thing.[/quote] You call it Rogering? Kinky. Also, I know women have given men a good "Rogering" as well in their lives. This isn't a gay thing but some folks would think otherwise... Gay or not, we tend to experiment with each part of our bodies. It's a fact of life. |
| jellothon |
| ||
Except that crime rates in the U.S. have been falling for over a decade, coincidentally while acceptance of gay rights, gay marriage, and gay-headed families has increased. So how exactly does gay marriage lead to the demise of civilization again? Some citations please. Thanks. |
| Racehorse |
| ||
I agree for the most part. You take a moderately reasonable position. Too bad more on both sides cannot see this as a legal issue that can be resolved without trampling on the rights of religions or on citizens. |
| Racehorse |
| ||
[/quote] Now, this is an example of your side being dishonest. Almost makes me sad that I commended your prior post. |
| japan airlines |
| ||
This is exactly why marriage or whatever you want to call it should be legal for any two consenting adults. We should not discriminate based on our personal feelings. I am 100% confident that in 20 years we will look back on this debate exactly like we (most of us anyway) look back on the interracial marriage issue. I think a harder question is why shouldn't three consenting adults be able to enter a single marriage? I don't think it's a good idea, but what is the logic there compared with the gay marriage logic? |
| japan airlines |
| ||
This debate is not about religion. Churches can do as they please with respect to marriage. |
| herman phernandes |
| ||
There is no logic. The consistent position is that consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever kind of agreements and relationships they want, whether it is homosexual, polygamous, incestual, or whatever else is thought up. And I would have no problem with any of that. Let people live their lives how they see fit. |
| another banned poster |
| ||
Not so fast. Marriage comes with a lot of legal rights and benefits that are based on it being a partnership between two equal parties. If you want to allow polygamist marriages you have to rewrite a lot of laws and do away with the principle of partner equality. Incestual marriages between siblings could in theory work out within the current contract but marriages between a parent and their child would collide with inheritance rules and probably other things (especially if the parent has multiple children). Polygamy has been brought up 20 times on this thread by now. It's really amazing that people can't see that they don't have anything to do with each other. |
| not gay married |
| ||
It's the standard slippery slope argument used to scare folks. First the gays marry, then Mr. Jones down the street takes multiple wives, then Mr. Smith marries his daughter, and the next thing you know we're all f*cking our dogs. It's completely ridiculous, but it's a surprisingly effective tactic when trying to convince morons that gay marriage is wrong. |