| 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 | |
| playsfortheotherteam = fag |
| ||
|
I don't think it's a choice. It's probably better classified as a mental disorder or a curse.
How did you choose yours? What would persuade you to change your choice?[/quote] |
| Mort Asplundt |
| ||
|
There is more at play in the "gay marriage" fight than simply granting the status of "marriage" to a union between two people of the same sex. The union, itself, by the way, is already legal and is called a civil union. There is a reflexive resistance in people to the thuggery of the leftist mob that goes beyond any resistance to gay marriage, per say. I believe the overwhelming resistance to gay marriage in the country as expressed through voting results is more a push-back against the heavy-handed leftist push to dismantle and remake the culture at every turn than it is an absolute revulsion with two gay people getting married. This blurb from the Wall Street Journal illustrates my point: "After California voters approved Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in 2008, opponents published the names of donors, who were later linked with zip codes and Google Maps. Donors reported getting death threats. Boycotts were set against businesses, and activists encouraged customers to call and harass business owners." This sort of leftist thuggery seems pervasive in today's American landscape and people are getting increasingly fed up with it. Likewise, people are tired of having their religious faith and their values system mocked and derided as bigoted and utterly anachronistic. Ergo, when the gay marriage vote "comes to a voting booth near you," I feel a lot of people are eager for an opportunity to say "back off" to the leftist mob. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Which doesn't confer the level of status as marriage in the eyes of the law and are now completely unavailable in the state of North Carolina.
I think it has to do with better organization on the part of gay marriage opponents. Many of them meet every week, and demographically, older folks who are more likely to oppose gay marriage are more likely to vote than younger folks who are less likely to be opposed.
I agree that no one should be harassed. But would you not support a boycott of companies that support racial segregation? Or, how did you feel about the boycott that was promoted against the Dixie Chicks after they had criticized President Bush?
You probably won't like this comparison, but what would you say to a someone that doesn't think races should intermingle that feels they are mocked, attacked and vilified for his value system? At what point did he go from being traditional to being backwards? |
| Ray Patterson |
| ||
Yeah, right-wing, idealistic, redneck thugs never threaten or commit acts of violence against homosexual couples. It's all on the left. |
| gaylefty |
| ||
|
YES its wrong very wrong. And all those against it, I hope all your sons end up big bottoms in bathhouses |
| Oh man, oh man... |
| ||
|
Yes, it is wrong. Are we done here? Case closed? Cool. |
| against gay marriage |
| ||
How did you choose yours? What would persuade you to change your choice?[/quote] You don't get it. You're so convinced in your liberal agenda that people have to choose to be straight like they choose to be gay. People do not choose to be straight. End of story. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
How did you choose yours? What would persuade you to change your choice?[/quote] You don't get it. You're so convinced in your liberal agenda that people have to choose to be straight like they choose to be gay. People do not choose to be straight. End of story.[/quote] So you could choose to be attracted to the same sex? |
| Mort Asplundt |
| ||
|
The analogies to racial discrimination are part of the disconnect here between the two sides. I don't feel it is a sound analogy. It comes down to this comparison: where race is concerned, fair minded people now all agree that it should be insignificant what "race" someone belongs to. In other words, the laws should apply equally in all circumstances to people of different races. That point seems self-evident in today's society, and rightfully so. Where the gay marriage issue is concerned, drawing a comparison between gays and a certain race is not a perfectly logical comparison, and here's why, in a nutshell: Gender should not, necessarily, be rendered completely insignificant in society, whereas race should. It is the left's desire to render gender utterly insignificant in any and all situations, as though men and women have no inherent differences and are completely interchangeable. They have slanted propagandist "research" in the past to prove this point and it has been utterly debunked. Men and women are, in fact, fundamentally different creatures in many ways. There are certain things a mother can offer a child that a father can not, and certain things a father can offer a child that a mother can not. Therefore, the ancient tradition of having a mother AND a father in a household seems to be the IDEAL. Now, obviously, this ideal is an increasing rarity in society and so is often mocked as an unattainable fairytale, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the ideal situation for a family unit. Establishing gay marriage takes away the significance of gender where it is most fundamentally expressed - in the institution of marriage. The fallout from this is that gender becomes insignificant EVERYWHERE and we cut the thin thread connecting us to the supposedly outdated wisdom that men and women are different, and sometimes work best in a tandem. It becomes irrelevant to a man, that he is a MAN and likewise, irrelevant to a woman, that she is a WOMAN. Do we really want this as a society? Is it a healthier society that thinks and acts like men and women are utterly interchangeable? Surely, there are negative consequences to that worldview. Of course I am not suggesting that men and women should be treated differently in the workplace or anything like that. Merely that men and women are different and have different things to offer a child. I am also not suggesting that creating a civil union or having unconventional families should not be permitted. However, I believe that changing the institution of MARRIAGE casts a long shadow and has very far reaching effects on virtually all aspects of our society over time. It may sound like a no-brainer when viewed simply as an issue of "equality" but I believe it is more complicated than that and will have unintended consequences. This is an OPINION about what laws and policies contribute to a healthy society. Perhaps the country will decide that "equal rights" is a more lofty concept than a tradition believed to promote the family unit and create a strong civilization. If that proves to be the case, we will see how it goes. My main point is that there is a sound, ethical rationale for keeping marriage the way it is. It is not a bigoted position. |
| D of D |
| ||
|
I have to give it to you, Jeff. You have been an outstanding and rational person. What I've been seeing is nothing but hatred by people who are against gay marriage. I can respect views about different sides on gay issue. However, I cannot respect when people are spitting out hatred comments that are similar to racism or sexism. For people who are being hostile towards pro-gay marriage supporters, please get your act together and expect to be taken seriously with your calm manner and rational statements. So far, I'm just seeing people who are feeding off their own hatred because they are unwilling to understand other people's perspectives. |
| hks321 |
| ||
|
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Simple. Homos can continue to legally sodomize each other. That should be enough. |
| Bigots will be bigots. Always. |
| ||
|
I was just thinking, if the world-wide web and letsrun.com had been around for 60 years or more, we'd be able to go to the archives and read some pretty shocking arguments against desegregation. |
| screwyou |
| ||
|
Yea and you're ignorant biggot who is taking away the rights of others for no f'ing reason. Why the hell do you care what they do?If they wish to get married let them, you should have ZERO say in their private life. People like you should be shot in the head at once. |
| Bigots will be bigots. Always. |
| ||
Just shrug and walk it off. These people will slowly die out and until they do, let's just use them as a reminder of how far we've come and make sure our children learn from it what they can. Seriously, they are not worth getting upset over. |
| seriously dude |
| ||
|
Good point about race. There are black people and there are white people. If the two procreate together, you have somebody that is interracial. If you have an interracial person procreate with a Native American, it provides a new type of interracial person. And so on and so forth. In other words, race is not a simple binary piece of information as it is made out to be. If one were to argue against interracial marriage, one would have to have a bunch of loopholes in there to define what exactly a different race is. For instance, is Japanese different than Korean? Is East African different than West African? Is Caucasian (white) different than African American (black)? The argument gets really muddy because it is not so simple. When talking about sexual orientation, you have heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages. It is a binary variable. Many on here have tried to say that we can define it like race, and say it is more complex than that, and if you give homosexual couples the right to marry, then you must give polygamists and incestuous couples the same right. But the gay agenda says that is wrong - they are completely different. Okay, fine, we will say they are different, so we are back to there are two types of people - hetero and homo, and we can even throw bi- in there. That is completely different than race, where the possibilities are infinite. Race is pretty subjective, a homosexual or heteosexual marriage is objective.
|
| Mort Asplundt |
| ||
Shot in the head? Damn. Here's the thing about marriage. It is a social institution and will always be, in some way, exclusionary. If it were not, it would have little to no meaning. Who's to say that, in another fifty years, there won't be a drive to allow marriage between siblings, or between a parent and their child? This sounds patently absurd right now and I am not trying to disparage homosexuality here. My point is this: If the arguments "you should have absolutely no say in their personal life," and "everyone should be able to marry who they love," are respected, then the law should not exclude ANYONE from marrying ANYONE that they choose to. If you agree with that notion, then fine, continue to use those arguments. If not, then why not? Chances are, you think there will be some kind of negative consequences brought about by allowing these types of marriages. Couldn't I then tell you that you should have absolutely no say in their personal lives, or that you are persecuting men who love their sisters and want to marry them? Of course I could and very easily, at that. In other words, chances are you at least concede that the line should be drawn SOMEWHERE when it comes to whom is allowed to marry whom, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why, then, is it so easy to brand someone as bigoted because they favor keeping the line where it has been for thousands of years? I say fight for gay marriage all you want, if that's what you believe in. Tone down the rhetoric, though. It is tiresome and is only sabotaging your cause. |
| HaveAnotherOne |
| ||
Shot in the head? Damn. Here's the thing about marriage. It is a social institution and will always be, in some way, exclusionary. If it were not, it would have little to no meaning. Who's to say that, in another fifty years, there won't be a drive to allow marriage between siblings, or between a parent and their child? This sounds patently absurd right now and I am not trying to disparage homosexuality here. My point is this: If the arguments "you should have absolutely no say in their personal life," and "everyone should be able to marry who they love," are respected, then the law should not exclude ANYONE from marrying ANYONE that they choose to. If you agree with that notion, then fine, continue to use those arguments. If not, then why not? Chances are, you think there will be some kind of negative consequences brought about by allowing these types of marriages. Couldn't I then tell you that you should have absolutely no say in their personal lives, or that you are persecuting men who love their sisters and want to marry them? Of course I could and very easily, at that. In other words, chances are you at least concede that the line should be drawn SOMEWHERE when it comes to whom is allowed to marry whom, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why, then, is it so easy to brand someone as bigoted because they favor keeping the line where it has been for thousands of years? I say fight for gay marriage all you want, if that's what you believe in. Tone down the rhetoric, though. It is tiresome and is only sabotaging your cause.[/quote] THANK YOU. |
| Lyndon Larouche |
| ||
|
If there is a technological development 50yrs from now that would prevent Down's syndrome, then why not allow marriage between siblings? There are already the consequences of inbreeding in Amish communities, and The Persian Gulf. This is not something that is universally taboo. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
And similarly as we have been moving towards a post-racial society, I also think we are moving to a more androgynous society, too.
Procreation has nothing to do with the ability to have a marriage recognized under the law. Marriage is not predicated by the desire or ability to procreate. You agree? My parents' marriage didn't become null and void the moment my mother entered menopause. And we all know people that get married without any desire or intention to ever become parents. On the question of parenting, do you have any study that shows that kids that grow up with two parents in a same-sex relationship are any worse off than kids who grow up in households with heterosexual parents? Every study that I've seen shows that kids are no worse off. In any case, how is it the position of the government to enforce an ideal? Would you agree it's probably ideal that parents be: educated financially secure in good physical and mental health free from criminal records And yet the government doesn't place any of those stipulations on a couple seeking a marriage license. What does it say that Britney Spears could get married for a day but Maurice Sendak and his partner of 50 years couldn't?
Where has this happened? Canada? Argentina? What do you make of the fact that a man can undergo gender reassignment surgery and become a woman (and then marry a woman)? It becomes irrelevant to a man, that he is a MAN and likewise, irrelevant to a woman, that she is a WOMAN. Do we really want this as a society? Is it a healthier society that thinks and acts like men and women are utterly interchangeable? Surely, there are negative consequences to that worldview.
Where are you getting your tradition from? Say I'm Navajo. In the tradition of my people, female bodied two-spirit individuals would marry women. And we were no better or worse than any other culture. I just fail to see any of these wide ranging, negative impacts you speak of. How long do you estimate it will take for these consequences to make themselves known in those countries where gar marriage is the law? A hundred years from now, a man will be able to become a woman, then marry a woman and raise a family, and a single woman or man will be able to become a parent (as they can now) and people will be able to get married or not based on what they want. And people will still go to work everyday, children will be raised, some in better situations than others, the sun will still rise and the Cubs will still be without a World Series title. Business as usual.
I fail to see how it is the position of the government to promote any ideal family situation, and furthermore, there is no evidence I've seen that shows that heterosexual parents are any superior to homosexual parents. Show me the study. Show me how things have gone to hell in other parts of the world where gay couples have all the same rights as straight parents. I haven't seen it. |
| Lyndon Larouche |
| ||
Indeed. Has there been a breakdown of society in Ireland (where gay marriage is now legal), Canada, where is has been legal for +15yrs, etc? I think not. |