D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Fixed.
The viewpoints of opponents to Gay Marriage makes total sense, in fact. That is precisely what makes it quite simple for myself to refute.
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Fixed.
The viewpoints of opponents to Gay Marriage makes total sense, in fact. That is precisely what makes it quite simple for myself to refute.
the use of this particular term in this particular context within this specific thread befuzzles me...
or is it more One Brow humor perhaps?
So Bean, let me ask you a question: If a person who professes to be a homosexual has, at some point in their lifetime, engaged in some degree of intimate relations with a person of the opposite gender (ie, "heterosexual" relations) in your mind, are they not really a homosexual? Or are they still a homosexual? Or do you have a different word to describe them?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Summed it up nicely. Now we just need a poll and it will be decided by our interwebs prowess. JF will speak and the interwebs will bow down and obey!!
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I have a difficulty in finding a girl who is pretty, likes sports, is a good companion, and other desirable qualities. If some dudes have another dude who can treat them right, fulfill their needs, and maybe even adopt/raise a kid or two, then more power to'em. It's not like heterosexuals are tearin it up with great marriages (half of them divorce anyway) or child raising (so many parents should never be allowed within 100 feet of kids). So why not give homosexuals a shot?
Serious question, are heteros/religious people afraid that the adopted kids of homosexual parents will end up being straight and therefore put enormous strain on the belief that being gay is a choice and a sin?
Serious question, are heteros/religious people afraid that the adopted kids of homosexual parents will end up being straight and therefore put enormous strain on the belief that being gay is a choice and a sin?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I have a hard time understanding how a religious person can espouse the viewpoint of personal accountability and freedom of choice while voting to legislate to keep people from having the freedom of choice that is the core of most religious systems. If gay marriage is a sin then that is their choice to live in sin. There is exactly zero evidence that gay marriage is in any way detrimental to society, while the costs of denying them that privilege is a drain on our already weak coffers, so defending it is actually provably a bigger drain on society than allowing it. Seems highly hypocritical to a religious viewpoint to fight this fight, in my opinion.
So, in bullet points:
* I am religious and freedom of choice is a core tenet of my religion, but freedom to choose to live in sin should be against the law for gay people.
* I am religious and feel that gay marriage is detrimental to society, even in the stark absence of evidence, so I will fight it tooth and nail, draining much-needed funds from society that constitutes a measurable detriment to society.
If any evidence could be provided to prove in the least that allowing gay marriage will be damaging to society in any way then I think there might be room for discussion. Absent of that evidence, it is just another discussion with my crazy uncle about the modern-day "black plague" and how slavery needs to be re-enacted because you can't trust them damn n-words.
So, in bullet points:
* I am religious and freedom of choice is a core tenet of my religion, but freedom to choose to live in sin should be against the law for gay people.
* I am religious and feel that gay marriage is detrimental to society, even in the stark absence of evidence, so I will fight it tooth and nail, draining much-needed funds from society that constitutes a measurable detriment to society.
If any evidence could be provided to prove in the least that allowing gay marriage will be damaging to society in any way then I think there might be room for discussion. Absent of that evidence, it is just another discussion with my crazy uncle about the modern-day "black plague" and how slavery needs to be re-enacted because you can't trust them damn n-words.
Last edited:
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Life would be great if I was gay. Tons of sports, movies, golfing, vacations without reading and shopping. It would be amazing. Also probably tons of sex and much less drama. I have about 10 good friends who I would marry. It just sucks that putting my junk in a guys bumhole is about one of the worst things I can think of doing.
I don't even know where to begin with this post. I know there is an indian joke in here somewhere, but I'm not wading through all the **** just to find it.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I don't think that is necessarily a pre-requisite. At the risk of being too detailed, I have a couple of lesbian friends who have told my wife and me that they do not enjoy getting...um..."messy" let's say, so they limit their intimate time to more toy-based activities.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Here is my rebuttal to your 2 points:
* Homosexuals have the freedom to have a marriage/commitment ceremony, or shack up together right now so it ain't about freedom.
* That is like asking people to show the consequences of an action before it happens. Just like Obamacare, we won't see the complete fallout of this change until years and decades down the line.
I'm against it because marriage is fundamentally about providing a stable environment for children and to civilize the males...nothing does this better than the long-term love of a good woman. Children really need the polarity of a mother and father.
Also this legally degrades meaningful marriage restrictions, and the rights of the people to determine the laws they agree to live under.
I'm sure the courts will eventually force this up our asses but that doesn't mean religious people should just bend over and take this foundational change out of some misguided notion of "equality."
I see you have learned something from me, after all. . . . . how many times have I offered this pearl of wisdom, that without women there would be no "civilization". . . . we would be living in caves and eating our road kill raw.
And, that you, like my wife, are a woman with a mission in life. . . . .
JazzFanz, however, is a refugem for males who are dodging their female counterparts, at least for the moment, by immersing themselves in a singular male tribal ritual. . . . basketball.
well, most of us in here, anyways.
I'm in here to start a revolution.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Petri-dish babies/invitro-fertilization=intelligent design. Just saying.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I'll let you take some of the credit for that belief...
Yeah they all waste too much time in their liberal circle jerk station instead of with their loved ones...but knowing this Steve Jobs world we now live in they are probably sitting next to their families who are each on their pads/pods/phones.
Who better than you to start one.
That's one point of view that is shared by others who oppose the concept of same-sex unions.
But opinions evolve. Maybe it's really about providing a stable environment for PEOPLE. Why does it HAVE to be only about children?
Personal stability in general is a good thing for society and should not apply only for children.
Sent from the JazzFanz app
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I've got two questions:
1) How does the prohibition of gay marriage benefit society and hetersoxual marriages?
2) How does permitting gay marriage harm society and heterosexual marraiges?
It can't really be about maintaingin the integrity of how we use a word, can it? Like, there are people just completely indignant because people want to do something and we'd let them, but they want to call it by the wrong name, so we will legally prohibit them and spend millions upon millions to maintain that prohibition for as long as possible.
And no one really believes that people who want to have a gay marriage will switch to a child producing heterosexual marriage if we tell them they can't have their gay marriage, do they? As though what they really want to do is apply the all powerful marriage word to their life. Again, this thought that the word marraige is magical.
Do some people think there is a limit on how many people can get married, like they gays are gonna use up all the marriages and there won't be any left for hetro couples wanting to produce children?
Or, is it about making sure the gays and the innocent children all get the message that gays aren't of the same high status as hetros and that this is a hetro society and gays can continue to lurk in its shadows?
1) How does the prohibition of gay marriage benefit society and hetersoxual marriages?
2) How does permitting gay marriage harm society and heterosexual marraiges?
It can't really be about maintaingin the integrity of how we use a word, can it? Like, there are people just completely indignant because people want to do something and we'd let them, but they want to call it by the wrong name, so we will legally prohibit them and spend millions upon millions to maintain that prohibition for as long as possible.
And no one really believes that people who want to have a gay marriage will switch to a child producing heterosexual marriage if we tell them they can't have their gay marriage, do they? As though what they really want to do is apply the all powerful marriage word to their life. Again, this thought that the word marraige is magical.
Do some people think there is a limit on how many people can get married, like they gays are gonna use up all the marriages and there won't be any left for hetro couples wanting to produce children?
Or, is it about making sure the gays and the innocent children all get the message that gays aren't of the same high status as hetros and that this is a hetro society and gays can continue to lurk in its shadows?
I agree with dalamon here. Your view makes sense, colton, in that if you buy into the religious assumptions behind, and see government as some gatekeeper of morality in the area of marriages, than your position is a reasonable result. I even took care to distinguish your position from another poster, whose responses barely rise from incoherence to the level of self-contradiction. I even disputed the Hitler analogy E. J. Wells first brought in.
I appreciate its frustrating to be in the minority (on this board) regarding such an important topic, but such petulance is beneath who you usually are.
No one here wants to solve a problem, GF. They just want to b**** and moan about how right they are... they wanna swing that e-peen as far and as hard as they can.
As someone once said to me "stop being so reasonable"
You would never consider making such an argument about interracial marriages (interracial couples can shack up, so denying them a marriage certificate isn't impinging on their freedom). So, I can't take this point seriously.
We have had steadily increasing levels of legal recognition regarding homosexual unions in Western countries since the early 1980s. We've had decades to see the results, and so far there are no measurable effects. Again, I don't think you'd argue that the Supreme Court should have held off their ruling in 1967.
No one hates men more than those who support patriarchy.
I became more "civilized" (in my case, serious about having a career) about four years after I got married. It happened just about the time or the birth of my second son. That's the game changer; knowing that you need to get serious because you're responsible for someone who can't care for themselves. That would work on two gay men just as well. If being responsible for a child doesn't "civilize" a man, no woman will be able to accomplish that, either.
I would say removing meaningless marriage restrictions reinforces the meaningful marriage restrictions. The people have no right to live under laws that oppress other people.
One of the great drivers in technological progress is the desire to kill more efficiently. So, even if the influence of women were generally pacifistic (I would disagree that there is any single force that is the influence of women, and disagree that women are more pacifistic), this would be untrue.
