- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,297
- Reaction score
- 1,002
- Location
- Saint Paul, MN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
argexpat said:What is it about their "lifestyle" you don't agree with? Do your gay friends know this?
Squawker said:It is only incest if the marriage is consummated. Utah is the only state that looks the other way on multiple wives. Most states that I know of have laws against bigamy, but maybe we can find a Judge to rule it unconstitutional to ban it.
Squawker said:It is only incest if the marriage is consummated. Utah is the only state that looks the other way on multiple wives. Most states that I know of have laws against bigamy, but maybe we can find a Judge to rule it unconstitutional to ban it.
It is SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT to believe that people who are Gay were converted from being straight. There's not one fact you can use to back up a statement like that. UGH!craigfarmer said:The beauty of America is that we can use facts and logic to acheive a conclusion. Too often people (recently on the left) have tried to bully the American public to accept a situation or policy that we disagree with through cultural nazism. Ideas like:
"If you don't agree that being gay is not a choice' then your'e hateful, or ignorant...
I'm dying to know that a woman's true role is? Please, please enlighten us?craigfarmer said:This topic as in certain other issues like women's true role in our society
Do you mean that white people have more educational advantages than Blacks? No one disputes that. Do you believe that if you raised a black child with a white child that the black child will achieve less?craigfarmer said:or the persistent achievement gap between blacks and whites, l has been under-debated because people fear the consequences of being honest.
Who says? I think it is said everyday. I am super liberal, but I prefer that my children be straight. Being gay includes extra challenges that we straight people never have to face. It's hard to be gay. If one or all of my children were gay I would love them just as much as I do now, but if you're asking me if I want them to be gay my answer is no. There is nothing, IMHO politically incorrect about saying that. It seems wrong only to the people who are unable to define anything gay, who are unable to accept anything gay, and who then are afraid of anything gay. Ignorance breeds ignorant comments.craigfarmer said:Now at workplace lunchrooms, it is inappropriate to say:
"I don't want my son to be gay", when at least 85-90% of people believe that.
ABNORMAL? That is a very, very bigotted comment, period. I consider your inability to accept other people for who they are as ABNORMAL. Intellectually, what you just wrote is ABNORMAL. Your constant belief that the "average Joe" disrespects gays or anyone that is not white & Christian is outrageously ugly. Having people who agree with your bigotry does not make it right, it makes it bigotry.craigfarmer said:I actually believe we can have a liberal society accepting abnormal people or people with abnormalities, while still declaring and promoting our basic culture.
Discrimanatory? YES! Negative? NO! What a paranoid statement. Show me anyone who thinks that a marriage between a man and a woman is NEGATIVE?craigfarmer said:It is incredibly offensive that a simple idea of one man and one woman being a "marriage' and a preferred family unit is attacked as discriminatory and negative.
Here are some websites that support your view, give 'em a call, you can gay bash amongst yourself all day long:craigfarmer said:People who disagree with so-called Gay marriage need to take moral stands, and stop granting the principle. Because right now, the leftists in the gay rights movements are winning. They have conquered the language and civil society.
No personal attacks were made. Attacks were made on his beliefs. I didn't call Craig a bigot, I called his beliefs bigoted.Squawker said:Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks.
Why are almost all of the threads started under "Gay marriage" by people that don't need to know a person's sexuality? It's very disingenuous to complain about it in your face when you keep bringing it up, doesn't it?Squawker said:We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private?
Bush is also pushing an agenda too. You have to expect resistance as well.Squawker said:If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
Squawker said:When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks.
Squawker said:You are way too narrow minded, to carry on a reasonable debate with.
Squawker said:Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks. We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private? If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
I tried to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere. Without laws and boundaries we have chaos. One of the arguments for gay marriage was economic. If we have no clear definition of “marriage” and all it entails then I should be able to marry my mother or brother for economic reasons. I love them both. I love my dog to. The slippery slope is a fact in that if we allow one, why not the others? Where is the argument against me marrying whomever I choose?That is a VERY Democratic point of view, LIBERAL, actually, and one I agree with. So why would you care if they choose to get married too? Or why would you need an amendment to the Constitution? Why do you need an amendment that bans anything (other than slavery)?
Squawker said:I tried to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere. Without laws and boundaries we have chaos. One of the arguments for gay marriage was economic. If we have no clear definition of “marriage” and all it entails then I should be able to marry my mother or brother for economic reasons. I love them both. I love my dog to. The slippery slope is a fact in that if we allow one, why not the others? Where is the argument against me marrying whomever I choose?
Most of the problems can be avoided with legal documents.I respectfully disagree because the slippery slope that you reference would be, by far and away, the odd exception. Think of it this way? You're not allowed to marry your significant other by State law. You can't afford health insurance, but your sig. has insurance that would cover a spouse. You end up getting very sick, and cannot get proper health care, you can't afford the medication. To make matters worse, you need surgery, but your sig other can't be there for you because only legal family members are allowed. Can't you see the pain? Can't you see this happening a whole lot more than someone marrying their mother or their dog?
My question was where should we draw the line, and you are avoiding it. On a personal level, I think they should all experience the thrill of a divorce. They will change their view of marriage real quick.When two people are lifetime partners, shouldn't they have the same rights as all other lifetime partners? Shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits? Why would you deny someone healthcare? Would you prefer for taxpayers to pay for it rather than private funding?
They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.It seems so cold and cruel to me.
Most isn't all.Squawker said:Most of the problems can be avoided with legal documents.
Consenting adults is the line that's been drawn in the sand already. Marriage is a legal contract and legal contracts can only be entered by consenting adults (or by permission of their guardians in some states that allow minors to get married).Squawker said:My question was where should we draw the line, and you are avoiding it. On a personal level, I think they should all experience the thrill of a divorce. They will change their view of marriage real quick.
I see my life living together with a man to whom I'm married and you're wanting to prevent that.Squawker said:They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
I want a lot of things and society is preventing me from doing it.I see my life living together with a man to whom I'm married and you're wanting to prevent that.
Squawker said:They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
Squawker said:Most of the problems can be avoided with legal documents.
My question was where should we draw the line, and you are avoiding it. On a personal level, I think they should all experience the thrill of a divorce. They will change their view of marriage real quick.
They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
Squawker said:You have the right to screw anyone you want to over the age of 16 just like I do.
Squawker said:I tried to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere. Without laws and boundaries we have chaos. One of the arguments for gay marriage was economic. If we have no clear definition of “marriage” and all it entails then I should be able to marry my mother or brother for economic reasons. I love them both. I love my dog to. The slippery slope is a fact in that if we allow one, why not the others? Where is the argument against me marrying whomever I choose?
argexpat said:The slippery slope argument works both ways, which is why its considered fallacious. To you the slope becomes slippery at gay marriage, but that's completely arbitrary on your part. Using the same logic, I could argue that the slippery slope begins with marriage, period. As soon as you allow heterosexuals to marry, pretty soon every Tom, **** and Harry wants to get married. If you really want to stop the slippery slope, outlaw marriage.
Another reason the slippery slope argument is fallacious is that it can be applied to anything. Gun rights: you allow people to own firearms and pretty soon they want bazookas. Free speech: you let people speak their mind freely and pretty soon they're saying dangerous/offensive/stupid things. Religious freedom: you let people worship any damn way they please and pretty soon you've got pro-lifers killing abortion doctors. Do you see why that's a bad argument?
BTW, are you sure you can't marry your sister or your mother? Are there really laws against that?
Squawker said:If you all think it is ok to redefine the meaning of "marriage", can we also have several wives or husbands? Could I also marry my Mother, so I can put her on my insurance policy? It isn't hurting anyone is it?
argexpat said:Now that you mention it, Squawker, why is polygamy illegal exactly? This specious argument invariably gets used by opponents of gay marriage as if it's a given that polygamy is somehow a bad thing. But is it? In a truly free society, what's wrong with a group of consenting adults entering into a social contract with each other? If a man or woman can support several spouses, why don't we let them marry? What's the rational for criminalizing this, Squawker? If marriage is good for one man and one woman, why isn't it good for two men, or two women, or one man and three women, etc. It's not obvious to me why polygamy is illegal. Please enlighten me Squawker.
This is a fallacious slippery slope argument (the same one made by Senator Santorum) equating gay marriage to something universally repugnant like marrying one's mother or marrying one's dog. Gay marriage is between two consenting humans who have no relation to each other.
Squawker said:Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks. We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private? If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
IndependentTexan said:Look here is the point. The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
HEY guess what else goes against life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. ABORTION!
America is messed right now and always will be. We say that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, but yet we contidict ourselves. Both parties ( Conservitives and Liberals) Conservitives don't allow homosexuals to marry which is not someing that displays the Constitution.
Liberals- support killing babies through an abortion and still think they are abiding by the Constituion when it says LIFE, liberty and the persuit of HAPPINESS! I admit, thanks to this debate i beleieve, gays should be allowed to marry and abortion should be illegal.
Probably because most wives would kill their husbands. It evolved over time as we became a civilized society but to be honest with you, why would a man want or need to marry several women and support them? Women in the US are available without payment or commitment.Now that you mention it, Squawker, why is polygamy illegal exactly? This specious argument invariably gets used by opponents of gay marriage as if it's a given that polygamy is somehow a bad thing. But is it? In a truly free society, what's wrong with a group of consenting adults entering into a social contract with each other? If a man or woman can support several spouses, why don't we let them marry? What's the rational for criminalizing this, Squawker? If marriage is good for one man and one woman, why isn't it good for two men, or two women, or one man and three women, etc. It's not obvious to me why polygamy is illegal. Please enlighten me Squawker.
The argument was based on monetary benefits of Marriage, so why would marrying ones mother or brother be repugnant? Obviously, consummation wouldn’t be a factor.This is a fallacious slippery slope argument (the same one made by Senator Santorum) equating gay marriage to something universally repugnant like marrying one's mother or marrying one's dog. Gay marriage is between two consenting humans who have no relation to each other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?