Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Surprisingly, I have found data that says the rates of domestic violence in same-sex relationships is about the same as heterosexual relationships. That would make them about.... EQUAL.

So who is correct?

The Canadian government study and the one by the American College of Paediatricians into domestic violence which state that domestic violence is two to three times more common in gay relationships or the Gay and Lesbian Resources page by a private psychiatrist you quote from?

I notice that the Gay and Lesbian Resources page you quote from doesn't mention the Canadian government study or the one by the American College of Paediatricians.

BAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
oh wait, are you being serious?
ummm....

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Well, since it was done by the "American College of Paediatricians", it would have to be in unmarried couples since children aren't allowed to get married and that's the age group that paediatricians deal with

Are you 14 years old?

I thought I was talking to an adult but I appear to have been mistaken.

Do you really think that the American College of Paediatricians doesn't carry out wider research?

Dude, come on, stop making me laugh so hard, my sides are hurting!!!!

reply to post by Annee


Well that is a very pithy definition leaving out the whole indentured servitude part...More than a few things have changed with modern ideas.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
BAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

oh wait, are you being serious?

ummm....

Any doubts that I was talking to a teenager have been dispelled.

Anyway, good luck with the rest of your adolescence.

By the way, what are your thoughts on the study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples that states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples" and the one by the American College of Paediatricians who cite several studies on violence among homosexual couples which found violence is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Very interesting information, thank you for your post.

reply to post by ollncasino

You appear to be unaware that gays want to change the legal definition of marriage.

C'mon ollncasino - this isn't a game - we all know exactly what we're talking about here

You were the one wanting to make this about the word and it's historical meaning - the rest of us have moved on

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

I don't understand why the concept of inclusion is such a bitter pill for some - but no matter - it's just a matter of time before this situation goes the same way as others have in the past. People went kicking and screaming then as well - but they went

Equal rights - under the law - for all of us. Not separate but equal. Just equal

Law of the land - our land - for all of us

Tradition has never been a good excuse

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I wasn't aware this was a thread about pro or con equal rights as much as it was a thread about whether gay marriage reflects conservative values???? Or did you read it as pro gay marriage via the argument that it is about conservative values? If so, when did Progressive idealists become so interested in preserving social conservative values?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

I wasn't aware this was a thread about pro or con equal rights as much as it was a thread about whether gay marriage reflects conservative values???? Or did you read it as pro gay marriage via the argument that it is about conservative values? If so, when did Progressive idealists become so interested in preserving conservative values?

edit on 23-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

We have strayed from the OP - that's for sure

Unless you factor in the unrelenting anti-gay-marriage sentiments coming from some of the posters. We can either incorporate all that into this thread - or we can keep reminding everyone to stay on topic

:-)

What do you think we should do?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Equal rights - under the law - for all of us. Not separate but equal. Just equal

If you are referring to two people of the same sex being considered 'married', that isn't an issue of equal rights.

Rather you are referring to gays engaging in social engineering. Which is great if you are gay and intent on reforming society in your own image.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Equal rights - under the law - for all of us. Not separate but equal. Just equal

If you are referring to two people of the same sex being considered 'married', that isn't an issue of equal rights.

Rather you are referring to gays engaging in social engineering. Which is great if you are gay and intent on reforming society in your own image.

grasping at straws now are we? :-)

you place the word married in quotes - so for you this is still about the word and it's meaning

gays want to be able to marry - but as you keep pointing out - they've been denied that right in many states

what part of the concept of equal rights still confuses you?

and anyhow ollncasino - you wanna explain to all of us here who legitimately gets to claim ownership of and power over society's image?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Equal rights - under the law - for all of us. Not separate but equal. Just equal

If you are referring to two people of the same sex being considered 'married', that isn't an issue of equal rights.

Rather you are referring to gays engaging in social engineering. Which is great if you are gay and intent on reforming society in your own image.

grasping at straws now are we? :-)

you place the word married in quotes - so for you this is still about the word and it's meaning

gays want to be able to marry - but as you keep pointing out - they've been denied that right in many states

what part of the concept of equal rights still confuses you?

and anyhow ollncasino - you wanna explain to all of us here who legitimately gets to claim ownership of and power over society's image?

edit on 5/23/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

If we are to discuss equal rights, why not add the pre-born to this category, or people marrying animals? Or how about the Man-boy Love desire for grown men to marry adolescent boys?

It is my understanding that some liberal environmentalists want to allow animals to sue people. Which to me is one of thee most ridiculous things I ever heard of.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
We have strayed from the OP - that's for sure

Well you have.

Why are the haters of hate the biggest haters?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
you wanna explain to all of us here who legitimately gets to claim ownership of and power over society's image?

Like much of your thought processes you have things back to front.

I don't seek to reingineer society in my image. Gays do.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Sorry Three Eyes - not playing

You want to turn the topic - turn it - but not with my help

Why don't you start a thread of your own and address those topics?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If we are to discuss equal rights, why not add the pre-born to this category, or people marrying animals?

Why stop at two people of the same sex getting married?

Why not three or four, joined in legal union, sorry marriage?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Sorry Three Eyes - not playing

You want to turn the topic - turn it - but not with my help

Why don't you start a thread of your own and address those topics?

Well equal rights or no? you started the equal rights bit thinking to turn the topic into one of pro gay for equal rights instead of does it reflect socially consesrvative values. Some things decidedly do not. I doubt that pets can be considered as equal under Constitutional law but some environmentalist may find a way, perhaps even twisting the corporations are people premise.
The reality is that the Man-Boy Love assn is attempting to legitimize relationships between grown men and young boys, and then will you say that it reflects conservative social values? One has to finally figure out if marriage in and of itself reflects traditional moral values, or do people seek to subvert tradition by changing the definition?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
We have strayed from the OP - that's for sure

Well you have.

Why are the haters of hate the biggest haters?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
you wanna explain to all of us here who legitimately gets to claim ownership of and power over society's image?

Like much of your thought processes you have things back to front.

I don't seek to reingineer society in my image. Gays do.

And who is it that I hate Mr. Casino?

:-)

Meanwhile...I dare you to answer the question: Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Some people claim to be so-called "conservatives," when they are not really conservative at all, but just another bunch of right-wing radicals such as weak-kneed Mitt Romney, fanatical Rush Limbaugh, tyrannical Mark Levin, insane Mike Savage and the rest of Fox's bunch.

Romney says he is for family values, but how can you be for family values, when a person is against same-sex marriage, like Mitt, that would destroy the tradition of family values for same-sex couples? Can you see the hypocrisy that these so-called "conservatives" display?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Meanwhile...I dare you to answer the question: Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Apparently you think you do.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Meanwhile...I dare you to answer the question: Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Apparently you think you do.

Are you afraid of a real conversation then? You want to turn this into a mudslinging argument? This is a game of your making - you really want to resort to this nonsense?

:-)

You accuse people, myself included - of wanting to remake society's image

I'm asking you a direct question: Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Answer it - or don't

up to you

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Not really, because before it was about homosexuals, gay also meant being about people of "loose moral character". As in "being gay in a speakeasy". The transition to being about homosexuality through another stop was rather natural: re: "gay cats".

I don't agree with absolutes being subjective. But I do know that even if there is an absolute right or wrong on any given issue, we're not capable of seeing in those absolutes, at all, so effectively, it's the same outcome.

This is called if-by-whisky...

People are mad because gay folks don't live the same lifestyle. And they are using the laws to force the gay folks to live the "right way".

Again I ask, where was all the hub-bub when they changed the meaning of gay? You know it used to mean happy, right?

SO, if marraige means man and woman only. Time to change the definition!