Gilluin
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Kalamazoo, MI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
vauge said:LOL, and what good will that do besides make their resolve that much stronger?
Very similar bill passed here in Texas with flying colors. Of which, I am proud to say I voted for.
Flying colors?vauge said:Very similar bill passed here in Texas with flying colors.
Gilluin said:It is sad that people hate gay people so much that they would deny them the happiness they take for granted. That of being to be able to make the legal family of choice. It is sad that glbt people have their families put up for a public vote.
vauge said:What is even more sad is when someone expresses their opinion about a topic (specifically gay marriage) it seems to come down to "hate". It has nothing to do with hate.
It has to do with the traditions that have been established in the United States over centuries. I am a conservative, I wish to conserve the traditions not establish new ones.
Shuamort, excellent comeback. lol
The one tradition that the country has started is the tradition of evolution. We came from a government that was a monarchy, it taxed us without allowing for us to be represented to air our grievances, it kept the power to the elite. The revolution and subsequent Constitution changed that. And in the Constitution, they allowed room for growth.vauge said:It has to do with the traditions that have been established in the United States over centuries. I am a conservative, I wish to conserve the traditions not establish new ones.
I do not love you. Nor do I love my neighbor (oops, not too Chirstian of me).Gilluin said:It comes down to hate when someone votes on their neighbors family because if they loved me they would be happy for me and wish me well.
What gets accomplished by allowing it? The opposite arguement applies. IMO, it will lessen the institution of marriage. Less folks (gay or not) will want to marry. It is getting worse by the day. And like you, I believe a strong marriage strengthens the family and therefore strengthens America as a whole.Shuamort said:I don't see how denying two consensual adults from these ritual vis a vis laws behooves us as a society. I also don't see how denying gays the right to marriage will make them go away either. So what gets accomplished here by banning marriage between gays?
I can think of 1049 of 'em to start off with.vauge said:What gets accomplished by allowing it?
Alright, these are your claims, now you have to prove them. Please bring statistics that prove yor claim that less folks want to marry. Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, etc. are working laboratories for this experiment.vauge said:The opposite arguement applies. IMO, it will lessen the institution of marriage. Less folks (gay or not) will want to marry. It is getting worse by the day. And like you, I believe a strong marriage strengthens the family and therefore strengthens America as a whole.
You're welcome to define marriage as you wish personally. I have a different definition of celebrating xmas than you do, or your neighbor does. Does that change the meaning of xmas or just the personal preference of what it means?vauge said:Again, (from a previous discussion), I can see and understand civil partnerships for legal means. But, don't take away my proud definition of marriage.
vauge said:I do not love you. Nor do I love my neighbor (oops, not too Chirstian of me).
I love my family and wish to keep the same traditions within them.
One cannot prove a negative.shuamort said:Alright, these are your claims, now you have to prove them. Please bring statistics that prove yor claim that less folks want to marry. Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, etc. are working laboratories for this experiment.
Everyone has their own definition of Christmas. But, the word Christ is still in it - so the roots are clearly established.You're welcome to define marriage as you wish personally. I have a different definition of celebrating xmas than you do, or your neighbor does. Does that change the meaning of xmas or just the personal preference of what it means?
I believe that a study like the one linked to above in years to come will prove different for the kids and societies of Spain and Canada. I think that it will prove deterimental on divorce rates, heterosexual marriage rates, and even birth rates to unwed mothers by mearly calling it marriage instead of union or partnership.The question remains, why does politically correct terminology make you stop inferring rights on to gays? If you'd be willing to give gays the rights to civil unions that would confer the same 1049 benefits, why should the difference between, oh, let's say: african-american and black be the part that stops it?
Negative statement: Vauge isn't a woman. Do you think we could prove that statement?vauge said:One cannot prove a negative.
OK, so we know with statistical evidence that gay civil unions are not detrimental on heterosexual marriage or divorce rates. So far in Canada, Spain, or Massachusetts we haven't seen any immediate detrimental affects. Playing devil's advocate, if that's an obstacle, what's the time frame which would determine if it would have detrimental affects? 1 year? 2 years? 50 years? The longer the time given, the better the statistics. But it's also the longer than tax paying citizens have shoulder more of the burden due to these laws. Is this equitable and fair?vauge said:Scandanavian countries are out of this, they have "civil unions" for gay couples - not gay marriage. They have the longest, as far back as 1989. You are correct, civil partnerships have not proven a negative impact on heterosexual marriages in Scandanavia. One of the reasons I am not against them. Though, I am not *for* them either - mainly due to religeous reasons.
Source: http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf
Spain & Canada descisions to allow full blown gay marriage are very recent - June I think. There is hardly any data to back anything up - either way.
Not quite. The roots of Christmas pre-date Christianity.vauge said:Everyone has their own definition of Christmas. But, the word Christ is still in it - so the roots are clearly established.
So far, studies have show that there are no big differences in gay vs. straight parents:vauge said:I believe that a study like the one linked to above in years to come will prove different for the kids and societies of Spain and Canada. I think that it will prove deterimental on divorce rates, heterosexual marriage rates, and even birth rates to unwed mothers by mearly calling it marriage instead of union or partnership.
In an online enviorment, it would be a challenge to prove either way without knowing me personally or having seen the evidence in hearsay. :shock:shuamort said:Negative statement: Vauge isn't a woman. Do you think we could prove that statement?
We are not talking about fair. We are infering tradition, law, and statistics.OK, so we know with statistical evidence that gay civil unions are not detrimental on heterosexual marriage or divorce rates. So far in Canada, Spain, or Massachusetts we haven't seen any immediate detrimental affects. Playing devil's advocate, if that's an obstacle, what's the time frame which would determine if it would have detrimental affects? 1 year? 2 years? 50 years? The longer the time given, the better the statistics. But it's also the longer than tax paying citizens have shoulder more of the burden due to these laws. Is this equitable and fair?
I agree that marriage is traditionally about baring children. But, this precident wasn't established in the thread.
Absolutely because the president had already been set in our familes and lifestyles. My kids or grandkids on the other hand might be a different matter. This is why I say there is no evidence to prove it, but my opinion only.galenrox said:Would you have married your wife if gays could marry at the time?
Dude! I could careless what you do with a plastic doll. :roflgalenrox said:It's the same with marriage, except I think quite a few more people think that gay marriage is ok than think that pooping on Jesus is ok.
Linkage: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/vitstat.pdf (page 3)vauge said:Less folks (gay or not) will want to marry. It is getting worse by the day.
galenrox said:lol, then can I drive down to Plano and poop on your lawn decorations.
Would you feel the same is Osco started selling baby Jesus dolls made specifically to be pooped on?
lol, nevermind.
So the marriage rate was down .1% from '98-99, another .1% from '99-00, and another .1% from '00-01. Was gay marriage legal then? (also, you'd note that divorce rates were down from '00-01 then)
As per your second group of statistics, what if I said that the increasing divorce rates happened because of gay people realizing that they're lifestyles are ok, and they were just getting out of their sham marriages pushed on them by a society telling them that they need to be straight? I think the institution of marriage is more damaged by gay people getting into straight marriages with their beards than it could ever be by them marrying the person that they love.
By the way, Kelzie blamed you for the deaths of 30,000 people, dead seriously :2razz:
independent_thinker2002 said:Slavery was a tradition for hundreds of years. Mysogeny was a tradition also. Are you sure that tradition validates your argument? What does the president have to do with your marriage? I know, you meant precedent. You can blame the gays for that too. Gay people getting married has no effect on my marriage. Get over your bigotry people!
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?