The costs of gay marriage

[TheSilencer1313]

Oh am I? Colton said homosexual unions cannot result in children, must have missed the part where he said "via ****ing" Regardless of whether they make the kid the old fashioned way or with help they bear every bit as much responsibility for it and thus I believe they should receive the same rights associated with creating a family as anyone else.

Getting the state out of the union of marriage would completely end the debate.
Marriage in the old days was handled by the church, and I suppose all you'd need nowdays to add to that would be a church condoning gay marriage.
Either way, there's a seperation od church and state.... and all the whiners could shut their mouths or get out.

 

[Stoked]

Oh am I? Colton said homosexual unions cannot result in children, must have missed the part where he said "via ****ing" Regardless of whether they make the kid the old fashioned way or with help they bear every bit as much responsibility for it and thus I believe they should receive the same rights associated with creating a family as anyone else.

You did miss the rest of the conversation that would have put his reply into context.

 

[Zombie]

More often, or just the times you care about so it makes more of an impression on you? link?
Also are we to the point that we assume guilty first and force a person accused of something to try to defend themselves with that label attached?
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you wrong? Is that the negative world you live in?

Also I'm calling you out on that crap about people committing bigoted action and not even being aware of it until it is pointed out. A person cannot treat others with hatred and intolerance and not even know about it. Because hatred is active, I'm pretty sure every person that is actually bigoted knows who/what they hate and don't need it pointed out to them.



Let me clarify, as you seem intent to be coy.
I have labeled you as a child abuser because your daughter wanted a candy bar from the store and you told her no.... in public... in front of witnesses! You cur!


You are the one comparing them, my example has to do with words and has nothing to do with adults, blacks, women homosexuals, or your opinion of children. You take an analogy and see what you want to see Shelob. One might say you try to spin your webs and catch people in them purposefully. One might say you see what you want to see even when there is nothing there. If you want to see hurt in everything around you, you will find it. I might even say you are a bigot if you tend to see bigotry all around you. You may try to attack people and try to get them to defend themselves of perceived hurts but realize any defense I make will not make the self inflicted hurts and wounds any better. Self inflicted woulds can only be healed by two sources, the first of course is yourself. The second is Jesus Christ. If I am offended at some perceived hurt from somebody else, most of the time nothing harmful was intended and they have no idea whatsoever that I am hurt. I can hang onto it and become bitter, or I can let it go and let myself heal. Stop the self inflicted wounds One Brow. Stop seeing bigotry and all the rest all around you. You might get lucky once or twice with your accusations, but most of the time I suspect you are jumping at shadows.



Is this your definition of what you are doing? Are you asking for my validation?




I don't think its a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents at all. He is lumping all people accused of being racists and misogynists and saying they just have to deal with it because it is the truth. (with few exceptions)


That is only true of people that are truly racists and misogynists. I say you are beyond using a broad brush to paint those words around, I think you are using a roller in your use of those words.
I don't know what Ian's definition of those words is and who he thinks fit in those categories, but I believe yours to be woefully off target, and that is my main issue with your whole schtick. If I hated women and/or held them in contempt in any way I would know about it. If I hated gays and/or lesbians I would know about it. If I hated anyone of any race or religion I would know about it.


Here is something I hate. I hate those neighborhood cats that come in my backyard and crap in my lawn and garden. Do you know what I do when I see them? I stop whatever I'm doing, I run out of my back yard and chase them, kick then, throw anything I can at them in hopes they will not return. I don't even hate them enough to really hurt them or kill them.

I disagree with plenty of things I don't hate.
I disagree most policy points of liberals.
I disagree with people walking their dogs and letting them dump all over the park.
I disagree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle.
I disagree with whether the seat should be up or down at home.

I don't go out of my way to harm or hurt anyone on the other side of these disagreements in any way. I speak my peace as respectfully as I can, and go from there.

If you want to change words, and jump at shadows, and try to claim what I do is something it is not, go ahead. That's your opinion, but that's all it is.

I don't to speak for one brow, but to me it seems to me that you and others who wish to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals are not necessarily bad people, merely that you are a product of your culture, and your cultures inherent intolerance of gays can and does lead to intolerance in individuals. In the same way that a someone who was opposed to equal rights a hundred years ago may not have actively hated blacks, but still held bigoted beliefs, people who wish to deny gays the right to marry may not have any ill feelings towards gays but their position is no less founded on bigotry.

 

[Zombie]

You did miss the rest of the conversation that would have put his reply into context.

You're right. He was talking specifically about intercourse between the two individuals producing valid offspring. My bad. I do still find that distinction beyond pointless as it pertains to whether or not their family ought to be legitimate in the eyes of the state. Or to put it another way I don't see their relationship to be fundamentally different because they can't produce offspring without help.

 

[Chris-L]

does it cost more for gay people to get married than straight people? this thread confuses me.

 

[Zombie]

does it cost more for gay people to get married than straight people? this thread confuses me.

Its going to cost all of us a bit more. Think about it, if 13% more people are able to marry that's 13% more weddings the rest of us will have to attend and 13% more gifts we'll have to buy. You gotta think the makers of small appliances are licking their lips over the prospect of gay marriage!

 

[moevillini]

Not to biological children of the union. And in that sense, a homosexual union is more similar to, say, two sisters that live together and want to adopt a child, than to a traditional marriage. Would you call the two sisters' relationship a marriage?

I know this is not what you mean, but it sounds as though you're saying that biological children conceived via sexual intercourse within the marital union are somehow superior to children conceived via other means....

 

[Stoked]

You're right. He was talking specifically about intercourse between the two individuals producing valid offspring. My bad. I do still find that distinction beyond pointless as it pertains to whether or not their family ought to be legitimate in the eyes of the state. Or to put it another way I don't see their relationship to be fundamentally different because they can't produce offspring without help.

Fair enough.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?

My Mormon lawyer buddy put it best:

Again, if you don't like state sponsored marriage, no one is forcing you to do it.

If you think it is a good idea for the government to butt out of marriage completely, that would be extremely problematic for several reasons. Just proving the existence of a marriage would be a huge issue. Imagine a wife who works full time to support her husband getting his degree only to be dumped once he's done. How does she prove she's entitled to alimony? Inheritance, child custody, health care, etc... Marriage touches so many areas, it is wholly impractical for government to say, "you guys just figure it out."

As for existing laws, you can't just "repeal" the discriminatory ones. It's not that simple. There aren't any laws that say "gays can't visit their spouses in the hospital." The relevant law is HIPAA that precludes non family members from getting your health info. If a gay guy wants to visit his spouse, the relevant concern is whether he can be a spouse or not, not whether HIPAA has an anti gay provision, because it doesn't.

I guess you could also ask the government to say "you guys figure it out" when it comes to HIPAA and every other law that touches on marital relationships, but again, it's not practical.

 

[nightmare3983]

My Mormon lawyer buddy put it best:

Those smart lawyers. That makes sense to me.

 

[babe]

smart lawyers are the cause of a lot of our societal problems. They write laws when they get elected to public office. They twist laws in legal wrangles in courts. And they charge a lot of money, too.

 

[babe]

So One Brow has thrown out some loose prejudice here. . . .

I've been gone a day or more, so it's several pages back, but since he is the essential definer and enforcer of political correctness in here, dedicated to finding all bigots and calling them out on it, here is what he said:

(post 207). .. . . easy to get lost in his ramblings. . . .

To refer to gay marriage as a "degrading" is a nakedly bigoted statement. It doesn't bother me that you hold a nakedly bigoted opinion, of course. I'll just call you on it when you pretend it is otherwise

.

here is what I said:

(post 204)

I think the insistence on seeking government validation for gays while degrading the meaning of marriage is divisive and unproductive, and the agenda as being pushed is actually destructive of all human rights because it turns our government into an agent of tyranny more than it already is. There is way to go with all this that will decrease the role of government and laws regulating personal behaviours and beliefs. Why not go that way?????

In my statement the clause "while degrading the meaning of marriage" refers to a centuries-old meaning that has, in virtually all human language, referred specifically to a man-woman relation. It has carried concepts of a great variety on nuance about the union of the two human sexes in a societally-recognized relation across all that time, while there has been homosexuality going on sometimes even openly and with in some places and times less stigma than in America today, whose relations were not considered "marriage" because of the necessary ingredient in the concept being the union of two people, a man and a woman. I am saying that the traditional meaning of "marriage" is degraded by the use of the term in other applications.

Words are often degraded, and experience a loss of meaning in human language, when people begin to use them to mean something quite distinctly different. or even opposite to a traditional usage. It happens faster in places/languages with no written language, and it happens faster among illiterate speakers of languages generally. Sometimes some folks will get educated and begin to use finer or more specific words to convey their meanings, and when the word they need is now being used quite loosely, it makes it more difficult for others to pick up the meaning intended.

And like I said, it appears to me in the case of the subject of this thread, that there are people who mean to just be divisive. It's a tactic much-used in politics, and has been advocated by thinkers like Machiavelli. Others have posited some sociological and political theories based on setting up two ideological camps and pitting them one against the other as a tool for change, control, or raw power.

Throwing out hate-loaded terminologies for people whose opinions or characteristics you detest is pretty much the traditional definition of bigotry.

People who use the term as One Brow does may be degrading the meaning of "bigotry" by using it in reference to people who actually can speak and understand English.