Where do you Stand on Gay Marriage?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by iori_komei
She just replaced homosexuality with brown hairedness.

Brown hair is not a behavior, so it's not a valid analogy.

thankyou for pointing out the ovbious to our esteemed members
I thought that went without saying.
And he thinks I need it literal and I dont get analogy


[edit on 2-6-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by iori_komei
She just replaced homosexuality with brown hairedness.

Brown hair is not a behavior, so it's not a valid analogy.

thankyou for pointing out the ovbious to our esteemed members
I thought that went without saying.
And he thinks I need it literal and I dont get analogy

Homosexuality is not a baehaviour, it like brown hair is simply a nautrual trait that some have and some don't.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Homosexuality is not a baehaviour, it like brown hair is simply a nautrual trait that some have and some don't.

Granted, sexual attraction is probably a genetic trait, or at least a congenital one, but we're talking about marriage here, which is a behavior and, of course, sex is a behavior.

Brown hair is genetic, but it is not a behavior. Hair color is irrelevant to the discussion.

Pedophilia would be relevant, which is probably genetic and involves behavior.

My stand on gay marriage is the same for my stand on hetero marriage, it's a bad idea.

You place yourself in a cage and the only way out is to hand the keys to a lawyer and let him take everything you have ever owned or dreamed of owning to get out of it.

In the mean time you are stuck in this cage with a raving lunatic or a screaming banshee and all you dream of is somehow getting free.

Not that I'm bitter or anything like that.....

So the right wing crazies don't want to allow gays to be married. The most ironic part of this is someday the gays will realize the right wingers were trying to do them a favor

your all spliting hairs.
sex is sex, even when its by yourself
its all about orgasim
porcreation these days is just an unfortunate consquence....so I am all for gay marraige....full orgasim, nor accidents

maybe I should restate that, my friend got drunk one night and his friend who was hitting on this "girl" all night ended up dropping him off at her place.
He gets up and says

one year later he gets a call from this gay chick and her husband/wife and that he owes child support.
He remembered nothing and had no idea that they even had sex...
tell me thats not funny


that was 12 years ago and hes still paying
while she gets brought up by the gay marriage couple
now thats a good scam

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Two persons of the same sex can do with one another as they please as far as I'm concerned, but there is no compelling reason to allow them to marry.

What is the "compelling reason" to allow two people of opposite sex to marry?

Originally posted by MSHARPE2012
Personally I am straight. But I heard a great line that really reflects how I feel about this.

"Why not let them get married. Why should straight people be the only ones who suffer", I can't remember who said it, but it is true.

What do the Masses think?

There's another great line: "Why get married? Just find someone you hate and buy them a house?"

That being said, I'm ok with gay marriage, and I'm glad I live in a country that allows it. Simple question...simple answer.

In New Zealand they call it civil union. I have gay friends in long term relationships and i respect their right to do so.

What does bother me is that the concept of civil union can nulify legitimate claims against family estates by persons who are not biological family members. That is my chief complaint.

I am also annoyed by the steady erosion in other areas of men's rights to have roles in the lives of their own children. In New Zealand, the gay partner of a custodial parent has superior rights of custody to the biological non-custodiial parent.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

What is the "compelling reason" to allow two people of opposite sex to marry?

I have answered that question at least twice in this thread and in various threads in the past.

I will probably not do so again on this thread or any thread for quite awhile.

GradyPhilpott

We're not talking about love, in the sense that Jesus spoke of. We're talking about marriage.

I love my mother, father, brother, and sister, but I won't be marrying them.

I do my best to love my neighbor, as myself, but I can't marry them all, regardless of what sex they are.

There is no rational argument for same-sex marriage.

We might agree that people can have sex with whomever they please, including family members, but there still is no compelling reason for them to marry.

We might decide that you can put your same-sex roommate, your dog, cat, and your parakeet on your health insurance, but you can't make a rational arguement for marrying them.

Umm... your ideas... they are based on religious beliefs... we're talking about rational thought... not faith... there's supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country... thump your bible in your closet... leave it out of our judicial system...

[Edit to Add quote I was responding to...]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Harlowe JNkinz]

person A is in love with person B and is willing and comitted enough to spend the rest of their life with person B

the same goes for person B about person A

now, isn't that really all that matters in marriage?

person A and B wanting to be together for the rest of their lives?
don't throw out the "marriage is for procreation" argument... infertile people are allowed to wed.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have answered that question at least twice in this thread and in various threads in the past.

Well, I don't have a cross-sectioned reference to all your posts, and I'm sorry, but I just don't remember your reason. IF your answer is to procreate (which I suspect it is, but honestly don't know because you're not willing to type it out again), then why would you allow me, an infertile person, to marry?

I'm digging into your logic here, Grady. I understand how that might be uncomfortable for you, but I would think you'd be willing to dig into it yourself, regardless of the comfort factor.

If the compelling reason for straight people to get married is so they can breed, then what is the compelling reason for me, a non-breeding female, to marry? And why do YOU get to state the reason for MY marriage? Isn't that really MY right? Shouldn't I get to decide whether I marry for love or money or family or companionship or status?

And IF I'm wrong about your breeding answer and your reason is that God doesn't approve of the gays, then I wonder why you don't just own that and be proud of your answer...

I will probably not do so again on this thread or any thread for quite awhile.

That's certainly your prerogative. But it makes for a one-sided craphole discussion...

So I'll just say that neither you (nor anyone else) can assign the reason (compelling or otherwise) why I (or anyone else) should get married. That's MY business. Not yours and not "society's". If I can go to the state and apply for a license and enter into this legal institution called "marriage", it's nobody's business WHY I choose to do so. The fact that I can't breed (nor have the desire to do so) has no effect whatsoever on any of the other couples out there who are breeding like bunnies. My marriage or gay marriage or non-breeding marriages have no negative effect on anyone else's marriage nor on society.

I agree with you that something's breaking down. Morals are disintegrating. But it's not because I can't breed. And it's not because gay people love each other and want to make a public commitment of same.

Originally posted by Harlowe JNkinz
...your ideas... they are based on religious beliefs

You would be wrong about that.

My "ideas" are based on years of study, observation, and experience in the fields of sociology and social work.

It is odd, even to me, that a secular education would lead me to conclude that "traditional" [even religious] values evolved for very good reasons and it hardly takes a genius to note that the decline of our social order has tracked in a near one to one relationship with the abandonment of the traditional values.

However, these are the conclusions I have come to and that is why I stand where I do on the marriage of individuals of the same sex.

It should be noted that not all religions have the same views of marriage that I hold.

It should also be noted that I have never married.


[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
... it hardly takes a genius to note that the decline of our social order has tracked in a near one to one relationship with the abandonment of the traditional values.

However, these are the conclusions I have come to and that is why I stand where I do on the marriage of individuals of the same sex.

So, you think marriage of individuals of the same sex is an abandonment of traditional values? Because it seems to me that if 2 people, regardless their gender, want to marry and be monogamous, that's actually embracing traditional values. Living as singles and having sex does not track with these traditional values.

How is it that marriage is thought of as abandoning traditional values? I don't understand how living together outside of marriage is contributing to or maintaining traditional values.

It should also be noted that I have never married.

Perhaps that explains a few things. I wonder... If you ever did find someone you wanted to marry, how would you react if the LAW told you that you wouldn't be allowed to marry them for whatever reason...

Because my passion about us ALL being free to marry the person we choose stems largely from the fact that I DID find that person who was perfect for me to marry and I was free to do so. I want that same freedom for all people. I can't conceive of allowing the freedom to marry for some, but not for others. :shk:

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I'm glad your happy, but your personal circumstances are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I'm also unconcerned with your opinion on the matter, while I respect your right to have one and share it.

I would go further by saying that as I have no children, I have no stake in the future, so I don't give a hoot what happens to civilization after I am gone.

However, in the meantime, I will share my views and fund those agencies that serve to protect the values that I deem important.

I'm still waiting for one single compelling reason for the state to recognize a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm still waiting for one single compelling reason for the state to recognize a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

because they love each other.

Love has nothing to do with why the state recognizes marriage between two persons of the opposite sex.

It really is a sad state of affairs when people don't understand the fundamental social institutions and why they exist and it does not bode well for the future.

Can you say "allah'u ackbar!"?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Love has nothing to do with why the state recognizes marriage between two persons of the opposite sex.

It really is a sad state of affairs when people don't understand the fundamental social institutions and why they exist and it does not bode well for the future.

Can you say "allah'u ackbar!"?

So, then, are you riffing off the fact that hard-core islamo fascists think homosexuality is a capital crime?
Good on you for your tolerance, man... What the world needs now is love, sweet love.

My good man.

My tolerance has nothing to do with the issue.

You have no knowledge whatsoever about my tolerance, nor is such germane to this discussion.

If we do not maintain a strong society by maintaining our institutions, then we will be overcome by our enemies, some of whom are Islamofascists.

Has anyone here ever even taken a civics or social studies class?

It's hard to carry on a discussion when basic concepts are so completely misunderstood.

I'm not sure where to start, but I will try to assemble a glossery of important social concepts.

[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]