Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[Harambe]

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?

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"

 

[One Brow]

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.

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.

* 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.

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.

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.

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.

Also this legally degrades meaningful marriage restrictions, and the rights of the people to determine the laws they agree to live under.

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 Brow]

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.

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.

 

[bigb]

This thread is entertaining yet frustrating at the same time. Both sides acknowledge the other won't change their view, yet they continue to hash it out with each other.
What's the definition of insanity?

 

[moevillini]

As someone once said to me "stop being so reasonable"

Link?

and/or

Pics or it didn't happen!!!

 

[One Brow]

This thread is entertaining yet frustrating at the same time. Both sides acknowledge the other won't change their view, yet they continue to hash it out with each other.
What's the definition of insanity?

Is keeping your knives sharp sane or insane?

 

[Stoked]

This thread is entertaining yet frustrating at the same time. Both sides acknowledge the other won't change their view, yet they continue to hash it out with each other.
What's the definition of insanity?

Banning gay marriage.

For the LDS (or other religious people) posters: How do you square away banning gay marriage with free agency? If all the behaviors that are sins are banned what's the point? Isn't that the whole reason the war in heaven was fought? (rhetorical).

You could replace gay marriage with cigarettes, booze, weed, fornication, polygamy...are we not supposed to have the right to choose? I am aiming at the religious side of the argument. Not the secular side.

 

[Stoked]

Is keeping your knives sharp sane or insane?

You are assuming that all of us have knives. I see a couple people running around with sporks on a good day.

 

[babe]

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?

I think it's all a supply and demand equation. . . . . heteros see gayness as limiting supply, experimentalists see both sides who are absolutist, sexually-speaking, as limiting supply, committed LGBT ideologues/sexologues see heterogeneity as a fundamental inadequacy in others who are unwilling to be part of their supply/support group.

All are demanding something of others, inappropriately, considering their own imperatives first in importance. . . .

I'd make an exception to anyone who is actually "principled" who sees sex in terms of purpose, particularly in terms of the purpose of having children, but few of us have that kind of consistency. . . . .

a general principled purpose, as Pearl is invoking, in regard to family values is the thing that keeps me on her side of opinions in this subject. I think God has a purpose for us, and I have a purpose in regards to my job and politics. . . . I want a community that is principled rather than selfish, so to speak. . . a society that appreciates and values the "first commandment" in the Bible. . . . have kids.

everything else is secondary, in my view, to that purpose. . . . but I think people need to understand the principles involved in human progress and propagation as invoked by "God" / religionists before they will act on those principles, and I detest "government/law" based on force as the "principle" that should govern us.

so, listen up all you gays, I just think you're wasting your chance to live a life that will produce some kids. Kids are the ultimate "good" in my view.

 

[colton]

Banning gay marriage.

For the LDS (or other religious people) posters: How do you square away banning gay marriage with free agency? If all the behaviors that are sins are banned what's the point? Isn't that the whole reason the war in heaven was fought? (rhetorical).

You could replace gay marriage with cigarettes, booze, weed, fornication, polygamy...are we not supposed to have the right to choose? I am aiming at the religious side of the argument. Not the secular side.

I don't get your point. Gay sex isn't illegal. Cigarettes aren't illegal. Booze isn't illegal. Fornication isn't illegal. Polygamous living isn't illegal. Can you clarify what you mean?


edit: sorry, I skipped over weed. Weed is illegal in most states, that's true.

 

[colton]

It can't really be about maintaingin the integrity of how we use a word, can it?

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

 

[Stoked]

I don't get your point. Gay sex isn't illegal. Cigarettes aren't illegal. Booze isn't illegal. Fornication isn't illegal. Polygamous living isn't illegal. Can you clarify what you mean?

You want gay marriage to stay illegal. Correct? From a religious stand point on free agency should it not be an option? Yes it is a sin but shouldn't we have the chance to commit that sin? Is this life not one big test? If we ban all the bad options what is the point?

From your answer you do not link it to free agency. Just was wondering.