The costs of gay marriage

[colton]

Prove it. Provide one argument used today against same-sex marriage that is not identical in form to an argument used against interracial marriage in the 1950s-60s. So far, I have seen clear analogues to all of them. I have no problem saying I was wrong, if you have a truly distinct argument in form.

I think the onus is on you, since you're the one using such charged words such as "bigot". Read my posts earlier in the thread. YOU prove that those arguments also apply to interracial marriage. It's clear to me that they don't.

In that you don't believe in a separate status (that is, you support gay marriage)?

It was the "that has no functional or practical purpose" part of your statement that was incorrect. That is, I'm against gay marriage, but for reasons that have functional and practical purposes.

So, I'm assuming you think there is a functional or practical reason to deny same-sex marriage. So, explicitly, what does society gain from denying same-sex marriage that serves some tangible benefit? If two gay men across the street from you are married, how is your marriage affected?

That's a complete straw man.

...

OK, I started typing out a line-by-line response to the rest of your post, but frankly I don't have the time. I'll jump to the end.

It's so funny how everyone in here pretends that I think I'm some sort of wordsmith
....
Note the offered synonym is "bigoted".

So, do you REALLY feel that the words "intolerant" and "bigoted" are interchangeable? Are they REALLY synonyms in every sense? Do they REALLY have the same connotations?

I will freely admit I am intolerant of gay marriages. I will deny that my reasons for being intolerant of them are related to bigotry. Your claim that I am a bigot by definition is both ludicrous and impolite. And just plain dumb.

 

[colton]

Just a thought.

If "everyone in here" is telling you the same thing then perhaps there is something there. Perhaps there really is a problem in the way you present yourself and your opinions.

+1

 

[colton]

Do any of you want to be crazy grandpa or grandma that actually supported the stance against gay marriage?

Absolutely. That is, I want to be on record as being opposed to gay marriage. If that makes me crazy, then so be it.

But this whole "wrong side of history" argument is completely fallacious, by the way. Of all the arguments I hear from the pro gay marriage people, it's definitely among the ones I respect the least.
https://wisdomandfollyblog.com/2012/08/23/the-hidden-fallacies-of-the-wrong-side-of-history/

 

[moevillini]

I can probably find lots more to say, but I'll limit it to this for now:

Many who oppose gay "marriage" in this thread are doing so on the basis of procreation. I can't argue that differences between males and females don't exist, and so my personal opinion is that a legally sanctioned union that has the ability to procreate is in some ways different from a legally sanctioned union that does not have this ability. I personally don't feel that that should be a determining factor, but I can understand that some of you might.

However, aside from issues of infertility that are personal, only if a woman is younger than age 45 or 50 is she reasonably able to participate in the process of procreating. So I guess I take issue with those of you who feel that only unions able to procreate deserve the legal privileges that come under the "marriage" umbrella yet apply that designation equally just on the basis of a male-female union - even when the ability to procreate is absent. So I see those of you who feel that way are basing a decision on the particulars of the sex act itself, and not on the idea of procreation, for all you may huff and puff on that aspect of the topic.

 

[Scat]

I can probably find lots more to say, but I'll limit it to this for now:

Many who oppose gay "marriage" in this thread are doing so on the basis of procreation. I can't argue that differences between males and females don't exist, and so my personal opinion is that a legally sanctioned union that has the ability to procreate is in some ways different from a legally sanctioned union that does not have this ability. I personally don't feel that that should be a determining factor, but I can understand that some of you might.

However, aside from issues of infertility that are personal, only if a woman is younger than age 45 or 50 is she reasonably able to participate in the process of procreating. So I guess I take issue with those of you who feel that only unions able to procreate deserve the legal privileges that come under the "marriage" umbrella yet apply that designation equally just on the basis of a male-female union - even when the ability to procreate is absent. So I see those of you who feel that way are basing a decision on the particulars of the sex act itself, and not on the idea of procreation, for all you may huff and puff on that aspect of the topic.

Without additional government resources to weed out those who are infertile, too old or simply don't want kids, it is reasonable to assume that a hetero marriage may result in a pregnancy. If your solution is to start a new program to monitor all hetero married couples to determine if they are fertile is a waste of money and resources. A gay couple is not getting pregnant. Period.

 

[nightmare3983]

Here's my thought on the matter. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. People who I consider to be prophets, seers, and revelators (aka the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) have said as much. Now, does that mean gay people and other supporters of gay marriage are bad people? Of course not. Are there enough arguments that can be made to persuade the courts to keep marriage as being between a man and a woman? We'll find out soon enough. Either way, I'll still go about living my life trying to improve myself day by day and trying to be respectful of everyone.

 

[NAOS]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Tell us how you really feel. I do not have that opinion of One Brow. Things like the above are highly foolish to me. I just would not like to have One Brows view of things.

You seem to have missed the point entirely... was I really saying those things about One Brow, no.

Was I pointing out how lame it is to claim you are not calling someone a bigot, but just calling their beliefs bigoted which by default implies that anyone that believes such is a bigot. Yes I was doing this in an over the top manner in hopes that somebody would catch on. I did not call him any names directly, just as he "would not" call anyone a bigot directly.

I also think you caught something from One Brow in your conversations with him. Your sarcasm detector did not go off at all.

 

[nightmare3983]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

Thanks for your "non participation". I don't recall saying my position is "fair" or "balanced", just that it is my position.

 

[Stoked]

You seem to have missed the point entirely... was I really saying those things about One Brow, no.

Was I pointing out how lame it is to claim you are not calling someone a bigot, but just calling their beliefs bigoted which by default implies that anyone that believes such is a bigot. Yes I was doing this in an over the top manner in hopes that somebody would catch on. I did not call him any names directly, just as he "would not" call anyone a bigot directly.

I also think you caught something from One Brow in your conversations with him. Your sarcasm detector did not go off at all.

I missed the point. My bad.

Damnit, now I need a tetnus shot.

 

[Stoked]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

I think that position very much exists and this is it:

The government, at all levels, should remove itself form the marriage business. They should only grant civil unions to people, regardless of sexual orientation. The rights of a civil union should be the exact same as those under a marriage are now.

Only churches and/or religions should be marrying people. If a gay couple finds a church that will marry them than fantastic. Get married. The governement should recoginize marriages as the same as civil unions as far as rights under the law go.

 

[Scat]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

Abuse?