Gay Marriage

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: piasabird
1. Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman; Duh! You can call it something else but it is not marriage.

2. You can either be for marriage and family or for Gays; you can not be both. They oppose each other.

3. You will burn in Hell! This is obviously against most people's religious beliefs.

4. Gay Divorce. Just wait for the lawyers to get into this one!

5. The majority of people in America are against it, except for Stupid Liberal Judges. I am surprised Liberal Judges that decide to rewrite the constitution are not linched. They will definitely be held accountable some day. This is an attack on the very fabric of our society. It is akin to a pagan festival and Roman Debauchery.

1. thats fine, we will call it something else.
2. im not sure i see that they are mutually exclusive. could you explain further?
3. well...thats...well...i mean, i dont know what to say to that. i guess we can legalize it and cross that bridge when we come to it.
4.i read a story it happened in canada. (actually, there is a musical called "The Gay Divorce." cole porter, i believe) anyway, i guess if hetroseuxal couples can, homosexual couples can too. i think divorce is sort of a seperate issue becuase a lot of the problems with divore stem from (as i see it) sociatal demands of marriage.
5. its seems like this is a big issue for a lot of people. but i havnt seen any numbers. and numbers, despite the popular saying, can lie. they are often manipulated by whoever wants to manipulate it. but again, often time what the majority wants isnt how things work out in this country. recent and distant history have taught us that.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PatboyX
kibbo, i have been looking for this same thing. strong arguments against. it seems like at this point in our existance as a nation, there are many more pressing issues to worry about but this one keeps coming back.
all the arguments made seem to be these sort of intangible ways to side-step the fact that allows gays to marry would validate the gay lifestyle in america, accept that homosexuality is not a choice and sort of bring a number of beliefs about the homosexual community being "wrong" down. or at least help lessen the taboo of it all.
ive heard all the arguments you have listed and none of them seem to hold up at all.
i have not seen a strong argument in here yet. and i feel you are correct that in 20-30 years it will look the same as it does to look back on the people who rallied against integration.

Here we go again. People fighting for gay marriage are the equivalent of those fighting segregation. :roll: You wish. I suppose it's completely escaped you that skin color is something you are born with and can't change. Homosexuality is something you are not born with and that can and often does change.

And, frankly, I haven't heard a solid argument FOR gay marriage that wasn't also based on emotion, so let's drop the hypocritical self-righteousness, k?

Here's an unemotional argument for gay marriage:

It does not matter whether or not homosexuality is a choice, psychological aberration, or genetic trait. We do not deny major classes of people certain rights because of a choice they happen to make - a choice which does not cause harm - therefore the entire argument about nature vs. nurture is inconsequential to the issue of gay marriage. The crux of the issue is a right being denied to certain partie(s) because of their sexual orientation and no other reason. Government's purpose should be to create insitutions and laws designed to help their citizens pursue their conception of the "good" and live out worldviews in ways which are compatible with the general tenets of political liberalism (mass murder would not be a compatible way of life/worldview). Homosexuality has for centuries been compatible with the general tenets of a liberal society and has existed, albeit in the shadows, as a practice which has had a controversial past but has never proved to be a 'danger' to society or incompatible with mainstream society, as our current culture demonstrates. Therefore, gay marriage and the associated rights of divorce should be granted to homosexuals.

It should also be noted that government legalization of gay marriage should not be constituted as government sanction of marriage in general, because government should not sanction any sort of morality save on those issues which have an adverse impact on the lives of individual constituents (drunk driving, murder, kidnapping, etc.).

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PatboyX
kibbo, i have been looking for this same thing. strong arguments against. it seems like at this point in our existance as a nation, there are many more pressing issues to worry about but this one keeps coming back.
all the arguments made seem to be these sort of intangible ways to side-step the fact that allows gays to marry would validate the gay lifestyle in america, accept that homosexuality is not a choice and sort of bring a number of beliefs about the homosexual community being "wrong" down. or at least help lessen the taboo of it all.
ive heard all the arguments you have listed and none of them seem to hold up at all.
i have not seen a strong argument in here yet. and i feel you are correct that in 20-30 years it will look the same as it does to look back on the people who rallied against integration.

Here we go again. People fighting for gay marriage are the equivalent of those fighting segregation. :roll: You wish. I suppose it's completely escaped you that skin color is something you are born with and can't change. Homosexuality is something you are not born with and that can and often does change.

And, frankly, I haven't heard a solid argument FOR gay marriage that wasn't also based on emotion, so let's drop the hypocritical self-righteousness, k?

i would like it if you would not attack me personally again.
i apologize if i set you on the defensive, that was not my intent.

Dude, really, if you consider that an attack, then you are WAY too sensitive or defensive yourself. Look at this thread alone to see what I bear every time I post and then accuse me of attacking you.

but i thank you for bringing up a good point that i tried to touch upon (but failed.) i think a lot
of the trouble with allowing gay marriage stems from it validating homosexuality. if this is validated
it would suggest that it is NOT a choice and, as you pointed out, not everyone agrees on that issue.

I agree that that is a major issue which hasn't been settled in any way. Yet pro gay marriage people are proceeding as if it has.

it seems to me that the argument for allowing gay marriage goes as follows:
1. homosexuals are humans.
2. they deserve to have the right to marry.

Brothers and sisters are human...do they also deserve the right? How about multiple people being married. How about children?

The fact is, many rights are withheld from people because they don't meet the qualifications. Felons can't do certain things. Underage people can't do certain things. Rights aren't always granted based on someone being human.

i did not mean to set you off but i do feel as though your calling me "hypocritical" and "self-righteous" was uncalled for.
if you believe it was necessary, i would like you to do me the courtesy of pointing out why you felt this was a good way to make your point and perhaps you could show me where i was being hypocritical and self-righteous.

Sure.

i feel you are correct that in 20-30 years it will look the same as it does to look back on the people who rallied against integration.

So the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not even close to being settled, but you have no problem proclaiming anybody against assigning new rights to this group the equivalent of a racist. How is that not self-righteous? How is your argument based less on emotion and beliefs than mine? Yet, I'M the ignorant racist. No thanks. Hypocrite definitly applies too. But, as I said, if the worst you get called today is a hypocrite, consider yourself lucky...read the past few posts to see what I've just been called and then gather the nerve to ask me for an explanation and not them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

So the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not even close to being settled, but you have no problem proclaiming anybody against assigning new rights to this group the equivalent of a racist. How is that not self-righteous? How is your argument based less on emotion and beliefs than mine? Yet, I'M the ignorant racist. No thanks. Hypocrite definitly applies too. But, as I said, if the worst you get called today is a hypocrite, consider yourself lucky...read the past few posts to see what I've just been called and then gather the nerve to ask me for an explanation and not them.

You seem so interested in what others do. Last week you were clamoring to do away with "Irreconcilable Differences" as a reason for Divorce.

Who do you think you are, our Moral Guardian?

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: piasabird
1. Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman; Duh! You can call it something else but it is not marriage.

2. You can either be for marriage and family or for Gays; you can not be both. They oppose each other.

3. You will burn in Hell! This is obviously against most people's religious beliefs.

4. Gay Divorce. Just wait for the lawyers to get into this one!

5. The majority of people in America are against it, except for Stupid Liberal Judges. I am surprised Liberal Judges that decide to rewrite the constitution are not linched. They will definitely be held accountable some day. This is an attack on the very fabric of our society. It is akin to a pagan festival and Roman Debauchery.

1.) The cost in utility of redefining marriage is greatly offset by other social factors which would increase total utility for all.

2.) This sort of bipolar and fallacious reasoning (no grey zone) is characteristic of those who wish to cloud the issue and try to simplify it to two sides (i.e. God vs. Satan). The truth is that we can WANT strong families and therefore advocate for gay unions because they strengthen social and familial ties.

3.) Religion should not come into play in any sort of state decision. Moreover, legal moralism (this sort of legal precedent) has a troubled and mixed past and should not be implemented by the state in any way. The state's role does not include the responsibility to PRESCRIBE MORALITY. That should be left to religious clergy, parents, teachers, guardians, philosophers, etc.

4.) If you allow gay marriage, you must afford gays the list of protections and legal rights included with marriage, which would presumably include gay divorce (one has no reason to believe that gay unions are any more 'stable' than heterosexual unions).

5.) The purpose of a 'right' is for the minority to be able to trump the majority. This is the reason why we have 'rights' to begin with - it makes no sense for a majority to have the power able to decide on whether to grant a check on its power to the minority because this is what a right is supposed to prevent - the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

I disagree with this. I have no problem with gay marriage or civil union as both basically boil down to the same thing as me. However, I do have a problem with the adoption of children by gay couples. That's the only restriction I would wish placed on their unions.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

I disagree with this. I have no problem with gay marriage or civil union as both basically boil down to the same thing as me. However, I do have a problem with the adoption of children by gay couples. That's the only restriction I would wish placed on their unions.

Why? You see, the problem with this sort of reasoning is because it implicitly brands gay couples as lacking some sort of essential quality which single-parent households or heterosexual couples have. This argument in-factly falls on its face on two fronts: firstly, if you push for equality based on sexual orientation you cannot restrict the rights of one group based on the reason "...because they're gay" or "...because X characteristic is characteristic of gays and leads to Y." You either give them the whole nine yards, or you don't at all - there is no middle ground here, as far as I am concerned. You can't say that a couple is married yet can't have children, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Darkhawk28]

What part of the gay lifestyle is sinful?

When it came to a lot of issues, my philosphy is MIND YA BIZNUSS.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
What part of the gay lifestyle is sinful?

The sexual part, which is all that many people are exposed to or can see. The problem is dualistic: our prudish and Puritanical treatment of sexuality and sexual topics, as well as the mass media's portrayal of heavily sex-laden homosexual relationships. It doesn't occur to people that there is more to a gay relationship than just the sex, just as there are many heterosexual relationships which go beyond sex as well (or don't include it at all).

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

I disagree with this. I have no problem with gay marriage or civil union as both basically boil down to the same thing as me. However, I do have a problem with the adoption of children by gay couples. That's the only restriction I would wish placed on their unions.

Why? You see, the problem with this sort of reasoning is because it implicitly brands gay couples as lacking some sort of essential quality which single-parent households or heterosexual couples have. This argument in-factly falls on its face on two fronts: firstly, if you push for equality based on sexual orientation you cannot restrict the rights of one group based on the reason "...because they're gay" or "...because X characteristic is characteristic of gays and leads to Y." You either give them the whole nine yards, or you don't at all - there is no middle ground here, as far as I am concerned. You can't say that a couple is married yet can't have children, etc. etc. etc.

Actually, it all boils down to science for me. Sure, there are some hetero couples that are unable to have children due to medical issues, but I can't think of any medical issue that would allow two males to reproduce with one another and have a child. If they can somehow produce the child themselves then I have no problem with them heading over to the hospital and giving birth.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

I disagree with this. I have no problem with gay marriage or civil union as both basically boil down to the same thing as me. However, I do have a problem with the adoption of children by gay couples. That's the only restriction I would wish placed on their unions.

you think the children would be better off if they spent their entire life getting ignored by the foster care system? IMO, those 4 adopted kids who almost died of starvation last year in NJ would have been a lot better off with a gay couple than the straight couple that was allowed to take them in.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/2583932/detail.html

I'm not saying that all gays would make great parents, but at least by widening the selection pool, you have a better chance of making sure that the children end up in a healthy enviornment.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

I disagree with this. I have no problem with gay marriage or civil union as both basically boil down to the same thing as me. However, I do have a problem with the adoption of children by gay couples. That's the only restriction I would wish placed on their unions.

you think the children would be better off if they spent their entire life getting ignored by the foster care system? IMO, those 4 adopted kids who almost died of starvation last year in NJ would have been a lot better off with a gay couple than the straight couple that was allowed to take them in.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/2583932/detail.html

I'm not saying that all gays would make great parents, but at least by widening the selection pool, you have a better chance of making sure that the children end up in a healthy enviornment.

Hey, I'm just saying what I believe right now. I'm not so stubborn as to say that I would never change my mind. But as of now I figure if there's no possible way for any gay couple to ever biologically reproduce then I don't really see why they should be allowed to adopt.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, it all boils down to science for me. Sure, there are some hetero couples that are unable to have children due to medical issues, but I can't think of any medical issue that would allow two males to reproduce with one another and have a child. If they can somehow produce the child themselves then I have no problem with them heading over to the hospital and giving birth.

Surrogate mother, donated egg.

Done and done.

Edit: There's obviously more reasoning to your argument than just plain cut-out "science."

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, it all boils down to science for me. Sure, there are some hetero couples that are unable to have children due to medical issues, but I can't think of any medical issue that would allow two males to reproduce with one another and have a child. If they can somehow produce the child themselves then I have no problem with them heading over to the hospital and giving birth.

Surrogate mother, donated egg.

Done and done.

That still doesn't answer the fact that two gay guys can't get married and then have a kid with one another. A surrogate mother doesn't take care of the fact that their genetics will never be comingled in a single egg. Well, at least until we reach the Gattaca days.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, it all boils down to science for me. Sure, there are some hetero couples that are unable to have children due to medical issues, but I can't think of any medical issue that would allow two males to reproduce with one another and have a child. If they can somehow produce the child themselves then I have no problem with them heading over to the hospital and giving birth.

Surrogate mother, donated egg.

Done and done.

That still doesn't answer the fact that two gay guys can't get married and then have a kid with one another. A surrogate mother doesn't take care of the fact that their genetics will never be comingled in a single egg. Well, at least until we reach the Gattaca days.

Okay, so if you lock a couple of gay men or women in a room with a big fluffy bed and some astroglide, they aren't going to have a baby. So what? Why restrict their ability to adopt, instead and create a family that way - a family by social ties instead? We don't restrict the ability for single men to adopt children, so why do that for gays? Your argument doesn't make any sense. It seems to go as follows:

If you are a couple not able to reproduce on your own, you should not be able to adopt children.
Gay men cannot reproduce on their own.
Therefore, gay men should not be able to adopt.

That argument falls flat on its face, no matter how you look at it. Replace "gay men" with "sterile straight men," or "infertile couple" or "lesbian" or "single woman."

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, it all boils down to science for me. Sure, there are some hetero couples that are unable to have children due to medical issues, but I can't think of any medical issue that would allow two males to reproduce with one another and have a child. If they can somehow produce the child themselves then I have no problem with them heading over to the hospital and giving birth.

Surrogate mother, donated egg.

Done and done.

That still doesn't answer the fact that two gay guys can't get married and then have a kid with one another. A surrogate mother doesn't take care of the fact that their genetics will never be comingled in a single egg. Well, at least until we reach the Gattaca days.

Okay, so if you lock a couple of gay men or women in a room with a big fluffy bed and some astroglide, they aren't going to have a baby. So what? Why restrict their ability to adopt, instead and create a family that way - a family by social ties instead? We don't restrict the ability for single men to adopt children, so why do that for gays? Your argument doesn't make any sense. It seems to go as follows:

If you are a couple not able to reproduce on your own, you should not be able to adopt children.
Gay men cannot reproduce on their own.
Therefore, gay men should not be able to adopt.

That argument falls flat on its face, no matter how you look at it. Replace "gay men" with "sterile straight men," or "infertile couple" or "lesbian" or "single woman."

Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

As I said earlier, there's always the chance that I would change my mind. But as things stand socially right now I just don't see how it would be a good thing for any child to be adopted by a gay couple... socially speaking of course. That's obviously a separate argument altogether.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

As I said earlier, there's always the chance that I would change my mind. But as things stand socially right now I just don't see how it would be a good thing for any child to be adopted by a gay couple... socially speaking of course. That's obviously a separate argument altogether.

Actually, I think this issue is in fact closely related to the negative stigma which gays tend to have in contemporary AMERICAN (note: ONLY AMERICAN) society in general, which is undoubtedly the key to unlocking the reasons why they are systematically denied social rights available to heterosexual couples.

You haven't really made any argument, simply said you don't believe in something. While you don't need to defend your position to me or justify it - your having it is justification enough - it does bother me that you haven't made any conclusive argument to justify it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Why? You see, the problem with this sort of reasoning is because it implicitly brands gay couples as lacking some sort of essential quality which single-parent households or heterosexual couples have. This argument in-factly falls on its face on two fronts: firstly, if you push for equality based on sexual orientation you cannot restrict the rights of one group based on the reason "...because they're gay" or "...because X characteristic is characteristic of gays and leads to Y." You either give them the whole nine yards, or you don't at all - there is no middle ground here, as far as I am concerned. You can't say that a couple is married yet can't have children, etc. etc. etc.

It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Why? You see, the problem with this sort of reasoning is because it implicitly brands gay couples as lacking some sort of essential quality which single-parent households or heterosexual couples have. This argument in-factly falls on its face on two fronts: firstly, if you push for equality based on sexual orientation you cannot restrict the rights of one group based on the reason "...because they're gay" or "...because X characteristic is characteristic of gays and leads to Y." You either give them the whole nine yards, or you don't at all - there is no middle ground here, as far as I am concerned. You can't say that a couple is married yet can't have children, etc. etc. etc.

It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

I think it's more of a reering problem. We all need input and interaction with both a female and male parental figure as babies and children...that's why God (or mother nature) has dictated that only a man and woman can make a baby. Giving babies or children to gay couples is compounding the problem.

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

Bwuauahahahahahahahaha Who shares that opinion with you, the other Fund A Mental Case Whackos at your church?? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

Bwuauahahahahahahahaha Who shares that opinion with you, the other Fund A Mental Case Whackos at your church?? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What do you think? That these people are born genetically mutated to be sexually attracted only to men. That's WWWAAAAYYYY more plausible. :roll:

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

As I said earlier, there's always the chance that I would change my mind. But as things stand socially right now I just don't see how it would be a good thing for any child to be adopted by a gay couple... socially speaking of course. That's obviously a separate argument altogether.

Actually, I think this issue is in fact closely related to the negative stigma which gays tend to have in contemporary AMERICAN (note: ONLY AMERICAN) society in general, which is undoubtedly the key to unlocking the reasons why they are systematically denied social rights available to heterosexual couples.

You haven't really made any argument, simply said you don't believe in something. While you don't need to defend your position to me or justify it - your having it is justification enough - it does bother me that you haven't made any conclusive argument to justify it.

The bolded portion isn't an argument? Or just not one that you agree with?