Pride Month! I celebrate.

[Inferno]

One thing I would like to see changed are the blood and organ donation laws.

Currently, gays cannot donate organs or blood legally. They ask you on the form if you've had sex with the same sex. If you are dumb enough to check "yes", they refuse you. This is the policy of the Red Cross. Instead of testing the blood like they do with all other blood donated, they just automatically refuse this group in society. And then they cry about shortages?

That is very true. Gays are not the only group with them and lesbians are the group least likely to have AIDS. So that is just a stupid bigoted bias that costs lives.

 

[Jerry]

Wrong.

Right.

Marriage is a ceremony recognizing pair-bond formation.

A specific type of "pair bond" and for a specific purpose, yes.

Post-menopausal women are allowed to be married, you'll note.

A benign exception that proves the rule.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

But the best place for a child to grow is in a house with both his natural parents (that means one father, with penis, and one mother, with vagina, if you're confused) caring for him and teaching him normal and healthy human relations.

You know, I don't think my parents' genitals mattered all that much. The healthiest thing for me would have been knowing less about them. And your post here seems to imply that being raised by adoptive parents is also unnatural and harmful to childhood development.

there is no "white month" or "man's month" or "heterosexual month" or "scottish american month"...

Nor should there be. People fighting for these things are missing the point, and they seem to be engaging in the time-honored tradition of trying to solve social problems by making them worse.

 

[Jerry]

I disagree. If this were the case, couples who do not plan on raising children wouldn't be allowed to marry, and neither would infertile heterosexual couples.

Benign exceptions which prove the rule, not the contrary evidence you think.

What we have is a clear-cut case of simple exclusion due to marriage being viewed as some sort of unmalleable institution to those who seek to keep homosexual couples out of it. This begs the question of why marriage is unmalleable. So far, there has been no ironclad moral argument against gay marriage - unless you view the Biblical version of morality as ironclad, which creates another problem, that of secularization versus religious subjective morality intruding into state affairs.

No ironclad moral argument against gay marriage you say? You haven't been here long enough to acuretly make that observation.

Quite simply, gays don't care to make their marriage about the family, which removes the governments interest completely. When gays do make marriage about the family, I'll support it. Until then, there's no reason to.

While I respect your right to not endorse gay marriage, I do think it's a stretch to say that marriage is simply for raising children.

I didn't say that marriage was **only** about raising children. Please stop reading what is not said :2wave:

 

[Arch Enemy]

Are there not St. Patrick's day Parades everywhere. If you want to proud of being Irish maybe that should be done in Ireland. I would assume that if you are Irish and live here at some point in time someone was not to proud of being Irish. Oh I am part Irish by the way.
Being LGBT is not a heritage it is an act of nature. That is a huge difference.

You are making the following assumptions:

1) That Saint Patrick's Day is a day to celebrate the Irish.

This is False, as Saint Patrick was not Irish. Furthermore, St. Paddy's Day is about as Irish as Cinco De Mayo is Mexican; it's just a good excuse to get drunk with family and friends (nothing wrong, but not much of a celebration of Ireland).

2) That being Irish is a heritage and not an act of nature.

Natural Selection deemed my ancestors worthy of inhabiting Ireland. Their short and stocky stature provided them the ability to stay warm in colder weather. This is Nature. Whether or not you prefer **** or vagina is not a natural phenomenon. Infact, I would argue that a man preferring **** is a psychological deviation from ordinary (nature). I am not saying it is wrong; I am just saying it is not natural.

 

[Inferno]

You are making the following assumptions:

1) That Saint Patrick's Day is a day to celebrate the Irish.

This is False, as Saint Patrick was not Irish. Furthermore, St. Paddy's Day is about as Irish as Cinco De Mayo is Mexican; it's just a good excuse to get drunk with family and friends (nothing wrong, but not much of a celebration of Ireland).

2) That being Irish is a heritage and not an act of nature.

Natural Selection deemed my ancestors worthy of inhabiting Ireland. Their short and stocky stature provided them the ability to stay warm in colder weather. This is Nature. Whether or not you prefer **** or vagina is not a natural phenomenon. Infact, I would argue that a man preferring **** is a psychological deviation from ordinary (nature). I am not saying it is wrong; I am just saying it is not natural.

It is not an assumption. If you spent any time in Chicago St Patty's day is more about being Irish then it ever was about a saint. It is hosted by the Southside Irish. It is not hosted by the churches. So in that you are wrong dead wrong. The same is true for NYC.

Like I said they can celebrate their Irishness in Ireland. I don't think ethnic origins has anything even closely related to LGBT pride. It is not the same.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Quite simply, gays don't care to make their marriage about the family, which removes the governments interest completely. When gays do make marriage about the family, I'll support it. Until then, there's no reason to.

I'm not sure that stands up, because many homosexuals do have families and are seeking the legal benefits of marriage-- since they are already, for the most part, enjoying the social benefits-- in order to protect and provide for their families. Problem is, I don't think there's nearly enough people of any orientation who seem to understand that marriage is about family, and I find many of the "family" based arguments against allowing gay marriage to be questionable at best.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not sure that stands up, because many homosexuals do have families and are seeking the legal benefits of marriage-- since they are already, for the most part, enjoying the social benefits-- in order to protect and provide for their families. Problem is, I don't think there's nearly enough people of any orientation who seem to understand that marriage is about family, and I find many of the "family" based arguments against allowing gay marriage to be questionable at best.

If gays don't care about the family any more than the heteros whom I already oppose, then that's as much reason to oppose gay-marriage as any.

I support the gay marriage which resembles in all ways the hetero marriages I support, with the sole difference of gender.

ceteris paribus or the gay relationship is different and is not what a marriage is for.

 

[Inferno]

I'm not sure that stands up, because many homosexuals do have families and are seeking the legal benefits of marriage-- since they are already, for the most part, enjoying the social benefits-- in order to protect and provide for their families. Problem is, I don't think there's nearly enough people of any orientation who seem to understand that marriage is about family, and I find many of the "family" based arguments against allowing gay marriage to be questionable at best.

Marriage has always been about family. That was very true when values were different. Families are now nothing more than weekends together. There is no commitment to marriage. No fault divorce has changed all that. It is a swinging door relationship. More kids are born outside of marriage now then into a marriage. Same sex doesn't even exist yet. It would account for less then 2% of the marriages on the planet. That surely will not change anything with regard to marriage as we know it.

 

[Inferno]

If gays don't care about the family any more than the heteros whom I already oppose, then that's as much reason to oppose gay-marriage as any.

I support the gay marriage which resembles in all ways the hetero marriages I support, with the sole difference of gender.

ceteris paribus or the gay relationship is different and is not what a marriage is for.

Gay will not do any more harm to families than what has already been done. They have not been a part of the marriage downfall that was the Heterosexual couples alone that did that. Lesbians and gays have lived together for years without benefit of marriage so they are not part of the destruction of marriage. Blame McDonald's and the fast food generation for that. I use that as the term for instant gratification. Marriage is not that so with today's I need generation it will not survive.

 

[Orion]

If gays don't care about the family any more than the heteros whom I already oppose, then that's as much reason to oppose gay-marriage as any.

I support the gay marriage which resembles in all ways the hetero marriages I support, with the sole difference of gender.

ceteris paribus or the gay relationship is different and is not what a marriage is for.

The gay marriage movement was initiated by people who had families and wanted to be protected and supported legally. To me, the core movement is still about them.

If you focus on detractors from marriage then there is no reason to have marriage laws at all, regardless of sexual orientation. I do think that marriage is taken less seriously than it was even 50 years ago, so why curtail a movement whose core supporters want to become part of that institution? I support gay marriage because I support the same-sex couples who have family values. I know that same-sex marriage is not a component of marriage that supporters of family values ever expected to be faced with, but same-sex couples who really want this are truly your allies. They want their families to be as secure and healthy as possible and they see marriage as the means of doing this.

A lot of other special interest groups who are both for and against it have jumped on board in order to milk this issue for their own agenda and it has severely detracted from what is important about the original movement. At the core you still see non-offensive families that just want to be afforded the same benefits as other families. The rest of the hubbub around it is nothing more than red tape.

 

[Singularity]

Benign exceptions which prove the rule, not the contrary evidence you think.

No, this is incorrect. If you truly believe that marriage is a vehicle for procreation and the government has a valid interest in it for this purpose, then all unions which cannot procreate would not be valid. This includes heterosexual couples who are infertile or who do not want children.

It isn't enough for you to simply brush this aside. If you believe these benign exceptions somehow prove your point, you need to back that up with an explanation of what you mean, because at best it's debatable, at worst it's just incorrect.

No ironclad moral argument against gay marriage you say? You haven't been here long enough to acuretly make that observation.

Quite simply, gays don't care to make their marriage about the family, which removes the governments interest completely. When gays do make marriage about the family, I'll support it. Until then, there's no reason to.

First of all, there is no ironclad argument against gay marriage, so my position stands. I will certainly give you the opportunity to present one. Can you think of a morally solid position against homosexual marriage that leaves no room for logical debate on the issue whatsoever?

I also believe that your assumption about gays not caring to make their marriage about family is incorrect as well, because there are a number of homosexual couples who do, in fact, seek to adopt, or have children from a previous marriage. Also, this still does not adequately eliminate the problem with the "marriage is about family" argument, as there are heterosexual couples who marry that either cannot or simply do not want to have children.

Lastly, government's interest in marriage is not merely over procreation. Again, if that were true, that also eliminates governmental interest in infertile heterosexual couples and those heterosexual couples who do not want children.

I didn't say that marriage was **only** about raising children. Please stop reading what is not said :2wave:

You said, and I quote, "The government has a valid interest in couples raising children, which, btw, is what marriage is for." If you want to present other arguments as to the purpose of marriage, fine. But you listed none of these. It isn't enough to say, "well, I implied that this was only one of the reasons to get married even though I didn't mention it", because I can only debate what you put into print, not what you are thinking.

In addition, I can say the same about my rebuttal. I never said that you only believed that marriage is strictly for procreation purposes. I said it's a stretch to believe that marriage is simply about raising children. :2wave:

 

[Jerry]

Gay will not do any more harm to families than what has already been done.

You can stop right there.

I don't want things to stay the same, with the 50% divorce rate, I want them to get better.

If gay-marriage not an improvement, I'm not on board.

 

[Jerry]

The gay marriage movement was initiated by people who had families and wanted to be protected and supported legally. To me, the core movement is still about them.

If you focus on detractors from marriage then there is no reason to have marriage laws at all, regardless of sexual orientation. I do think that marriage is taken less seriously than it was even 50 years ago, so why curtail a movement whose core supporters want to become part of that institution? I support gay marriage because I support the same-sex couples who have family values. I know that same-sex marriage is not a component of marriage that supporters of family values ever expected to be faced with, but same-sex couples who really want this are truly your allies. They want their families to be as secure and healthy as possible and they see marriage as the means of doing this.

A lot of other special interest groups who are both for and against it have jumped on board in order to milk this issue for their own agenda and it has severely detracted from what is important about the original movement. At the core you still see non-offensive families that just want to be afforded the same benefits as other families. The rest of the hubbub around it is nothing more than red tape.

If you're all about eliminating the legal institution of marriage then you and I can shake hands and part ways as friends right now because we have nothing else to discuss.

 

[Jerry]

No, this is incorrect. If you truly believe that marriage is a vehicle for procreation and the government has a valid interest in it for this purpose, then all unions which cannot procreate would not be valid. This includes heterosexual couples who are infertile or who do not want children.

Yeah well guess what, unrelated couples with inheritable genetic disorders can marry, so I guess according to your argument this means incest should be legal.

People with inheritable genetic disorders comprise a very small % of marriages, so they are, once again, benign exceptions which prove the rule against incest.

If we have to ban those unrelated people with inheritable genetic disorders from marrying so that we can stop incest, fine, let's ban them. If we have to ban infertile couples from marrying also, fine, let's ban them.

First of all, there is no ironclad argument against gay marriage, so my position stands. I will certainly give you the opportunity to present one. Can you think of a morally solid position against homosexual marriage that leaves no room for logical debate on the issue whatsoever?

Do you even realize what you just said?

I also believe that your assumption about gays not caring to make their marriage about family is incorrect as well, because there are a number of homosexual couples who do, in fact, seek to adopt, or have children from a previous marriage. Also, this still does not adequately eliminate the problem with the "marriage is about family" argument, as there are heterosexual couples who marry that either cannot or simply do not want to have children.

Fine, ban them.

Lastly, government's interest in marriage is not merely over procreation. Again, if that were true, that also eliminates governmental interest in infertile heterosexual couples and those heterosexual couples who do not want children.

Fine, ban them.

In addition, I can say the same about my rebuttal. I never said that you only believed that marriage is strictly for procreation purposes. I said it's a stretch to believe that marriage is simply about raising children. :2wave:

At least we agree that your point was random and off topic :2wave:

 

[Orion]

If you're all about eliminating the legal institution of marriage then you and I can shake hands and part ways as friends right now because we have nothing else to discuss.

Jerry, that is not what I said at all, and you know it.

Put simply: if you value the institution of marriage in terms of what it means for families, then you should have no problem with new people entering that institution in the name of their families. That is exactly what the pro-GM movement is about at its core.

This is what I find incredibly ironic about those who oppose gay marriage. The same sex couples who want and need this the most are people who want the same values that you do - that is, assuming you are first and foremost about healthy families, and aren't against it simply out of bigotry.

It erodes family values to deny them this right as their families are losing out on the legal strengthening process of having marriage licenses. It makes it harder for the two parents to have dual custody of their children, to go to parent interviews at school, to have joint insurance that includes their children, to have next-of-kin rights in medical emergencies, the list goes on.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, that is not what I said at all, and you know it.

Put simply: if you value the institution of marriage in terms of what it means for families, then you should have no problem with new people entering that institution in the name of their families.That is exactly what the pro-GM movement is about at its core.

Prove it.

This is what I find incredibly ironic about those who oppose gay marriage. The same sex couples who want and need this the most are people who want the same values that you do - that is, assuming you are first and foremost about healthy families, and aren't against it simply out of bigotry.

Yeah, except I don't lift a finger to stand in gay-marriage's way there big guy. You might want to check your facts before going off on another hysterical rant.

 

[Inferno]

You can stop right there.

I don't want things to stay the same, with the 50% divorce rate, I want them to get better.

If gay-marriage not an improvement, I'm not on board.

You don't have any idea what it will be until it is tried. Marriage is a system doomed to fail as it is. Unless you change the way people are allowed to enter into marriage and the way they are allowed to get out of said contract there will be no change. The divorce rate will go up. The number of children in single family homes will go up.

The odds are because lesbians and gays have been denied this right for so long that it will have a better survival rate.

Maybe marriage should be abolished totally and all children should become wards of the state. Does that work for anyone?

It is like abortion everyone pisses and moans about that and they never stop to think that it is rampant uncontrolled sexuality that causes this problem. But no one wants to face the issue head on. So they bitch about abortions.

Marriage is the same thing. Single parent families. 50% divorce rate. Over 50% of the kids born out of wedlock. It all circles back to rampant uncontrolled sexuality. In both cases. No one stops to say hey we have ****ed our way into a massive problem and now how do we get out.

It seems that people are more content to bitch about other things.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

That was my point as well...

there is no "white month" or "man's month" or "heterosexual month" or "scottish american month"...

You must keep in mind that one also doesn't have to worry about losing friends or family by simply being open about those things either. I can fully understand why someone would want to celebrate finally being able to be honest and open about who you are.

 

[Inferno]

That was my point as well...

there is no "white month" or "man's month" or "heterosexual month" or "scottish american month"...

Every month is man's month. How long did it take women to get the right to vote?

Every month is white month. If it weren't they would not have to tell us every time there is a black first. Now would they?

Every month is heterosexual month. Look at all the ads with men and women hugging and kissing the word is based on heterosexuals.

If you want to celebrate being Scottish move to Scotland. Then knock your socks off with that.

So it seems to me that if you are a man and white and Scottish and heterosexual you have had it all going your way for a long time. You should be pretty happy.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

That lack of respect for marriage and family is where the modern gay marriage movement comes from.

By supporting gay marriage you are supporting that same disrespect.

Actually, I think you have it backwards. If gays DIDN'T respect the institution of marriage, they'd hardly want to participate in it.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

You can stop right there.

I don't want things to stay the same, with the 50% divorce rate, I want them to get better.

If gay-marriage not an improvement, I'm not on board.

Did gay marriage impact your relationship with your wife?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No, this is incorrect. If you truly believe that marriage is a vehicle for procreation and the government has a valid interest in it for this purpose, then all unions which cannot procreate would not be valid. This includes heterosexual couples who are infertile or who do not want children.

Just because the two are connected does not mean that there is not a massive and important difference between procreation and raising children. Infertile couples and couples with inheritable genetic disorders, much like homosexual couples, are more than capable of raising children they have acquired by other means.

My opposition to incestuous unions is not based on genetics, and I do not believe that the laws which prohibit them should be based on genetics, either-- unfortunately, the laws and the majority of the populace disagree with me on this issue, just as they seem to disagree with me on nearly every issue pertaining to family relationships.

In any case, it is not necessary for the institution to only promote those relationships which provide a healthy environment for children, only to promote those relationships which tend to. The fact that intentionally childless couples can be married does not detract from marriage being the best condition in which to raise children, and thus does not detract from the government having a legitimate interest in promoting marriage.

Lastly, government's interest in marriage is not merely over procreation.

What would you say that the government's interest in marriage is, then? For what other reason should the government subsidize and extend special privileges to certain kinds of relationships between adults?

After all, in order to argue that homosexuals should be allowed, we have to accept the point that heterosexual marriage is a valid social institution and that the government has a legitimate reason to encourage it. As much as I am vehemently opposed to the position, several people have stepped forward and claimed that the government has no business in marriage whatsoever.

I can defend marriage-- whether it is equal opportunity or not-- on the grounds of providing the healthiest and most stable home environment for children. I can probably defend it on a few other grounds, though my argument will be shakier. I think anyone would be hard pressed to defend marriage on no grounds whatsoever, and that appears to be all you're offering to counter mine and Jerry's position.

Put simply: if you value the institution of marriage in terms of what it means for families, then you should have no problem with new people entering that institution in the name of their families. That is exactly what the pro-GM movement is about at its core.

I would argue that depends entirely on the nature of those new people. I support extending marriage benefits to homosexual and polygamous unions, but I am strongly opposed to lifting any of the other legal restrictions on marriage-- and there are several additional restrictions I would like to impose on whom may get married, and especially on whom may get divorced. I would like those States which allow first cousins to marry to cease, and I would like to see marriages to prisoners and foreigners more strictly controlled.

In fact, I've proposed as a potential compromise that homosexual marriages be allowed to marry as long as everyone-- homosexual and heterosexual alike-- is married under the terms of Covenant marriage or something similar. Sadly, noone else has taken me up on the offer, and I'm a little confused as to how people can be so opposed to homosexual marriage and still so accepting of casual no-fault divorce.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You need to know the history of the LGBT movement. We were denied jobs.

Employers have human rights, too.

We could be jailed.

For being queer?

I bet the cops had to write something else out on the booking form, even then.

We could be harassed by police (see the Stonewall Riots). That has changed.

What have you done to deserve special treatment now?

We could be beaten on the streets with no chance of rescue. That has changed (see hate crime laws)

No, it hasn't changed.

Thought crime laws only punish unapproved thoughts, they in no ways make bystanders liable for their inaction when someone is having the tar beat out of them in public.

We could be put in a mental hospital.

That's reasonable.

Let us know when you people figure out if gayism is a genetic disorder, a developmental disorder, or a choice, okay?

Don't claim it's not a mental illness.

When marriage laws have passed then it is time to say the end to the movement we have then reach equality. The military will soon change it's policy as well so that is a moot point.

Yeah, right.

Tell me, has the NAALCP disbanded yet?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Back in the 70's I had a gay friend and he and I would pretend to be married at each others work functions so we could keep our jobs. That happened a lot. We even had his boss and wife over to dinner so that he could me me the Mrs. It is a joke when a person had to go to the extreme to keep a job. We had to do that because someone where he works said they thought he was gay. My friend kept his job. The person who started the rumor got a promotion for looking out for the best interests of the company.

If your friend was gay and a co-worker said he thought your friend was gay, that's not a "rumor".