Prove attraction is a choice.

[LuckyDan]

No, our arguments do not all boil down to it's not fair. This may be your perception, but it is simply not true.

Your arguments tend to be more on the "you" level. Individualistic.

 

[Your Star]

Your arguments tend to be more on the "you" level. Individualistic.

I try to personalize it, make people see it as something that affects actual people, and not just groups that are overly politicized.

 

[LuckyDan]

I try to personalize it, make people see it as something that affects actual people, and not just groups that are overly politicized.

I know.

My belief is that marriage between one man and one woman is good for civilization, as a building block. Most men are hetero. Their drive is to procreate with as many women as possible. Marriage curbs that drive and forces men into monogamy. The idea is fewer out of wedlock births and fewer mothers fending for themselves and their offspring alone.

Very general, yes, but with that aim in mind, an institution worth preserving and strengthening.

I just don't see SSM adding any value to it. Gays can still be gay. Lesbians can still be lesbians.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

1. Are you capable of finding the same sex attractive?
2. Could you choose to be attracted to the same sex over the opposite sex?
3. Could you become sexually aroused by the same sex in the same way as you do for the opposite sex?

I get your point in your post - but none of these three things MAKE someone a homosexual by simply feeling them - homosexuality is enacted on and followed through with in life.

 

[Verthaine]

Have you not noticed the same arguments from the pro crowd? All of which boil down to the F word.

It's not FAIR!

No, it isn't. But it's right.

Personally,I'd rather be fair then right.
By the way,I'm black,my wife is white.
Until about 40 years ago that wasn't considered "natural" either.
My father fought,was put in jail,beaten,had dogs sicced on him,waterhosed,and almost lynched by people who considered themselves "conservatives" who didn't believe that blacks having the same rights as whites was "natural".

Just saying.

 

[Your Star]

I know.

My belief is that marriage between one man and one woman is good for civilization, as a building block. Most men are hetero. Their drive is to procreate with as many women as possible. Marriage curbs that drive and forces men into monogamy. The idea is fewer out of wedlock births and fewer mothers fending for themselves and their offspring alone.

Very general, yes, but with that aim in mind, an institution worth preserving and strengthening.

I just don't see SSM adding any value to it. Gays can still be gay. Lesbians can still be lesbians.

And SSM strengthens the institution, and the family. LGBT people have families, they have children, and allowing them the benefits of legal marriage will do nothing but improve it.

I would like to know how you think SSM would harm the institution, and why you believe that you must keep LGBT people from entering the institution in order to protect it.

 

[Verthaine]

I know.

My belief is that marriage between one man and one woman is good for civilization, as a building block. Most men are hetero. Their drive is to procreate with as many women as possible. Marriage curbs that drive and forces men into monogamy.

The idea is fewer out of wedlock births and fewer mothers fending for themselves and their offspring alone.

Very general, yes, but with that aim in mind, an institution worth preserving and strengthening.

I just don't see SSM adding any value to it. Gays can still be gay. Lesbians can still be lesbians.

And I don't see how it detracts from it either,and I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than "you don't believe in it".

 

[Aunt Spiker]

And SSM strengthens the institution, and the family. LGBT people have families, they have children, and allowing them the benefits of legal marriage will do nothing but improve it.

I would like to know how you think SSM would harm the institution, and why you believe that you must keep LGBT people from entering the institution in order to protect it.

Marriage is already a broken idealology that most people can't abide by and don't cleave to. . . though I should note that the divorce rate has dropped to that equal of the 'golden 50's' that everyone touts.

 

[LuckyDan]

And SSM strengthens the institution, and the family. LGBT people have families, they have children, and allowing them the benefits of legal marriage will do nothing but improve it.

I would like to know how you think SSM would harm the institution, and why you believe that you must keep LGBT people from entering the institution in order to protect it.

They simply don't need it. They cannot procreate. They can form a semblance of a family, yes, but only artificially. There will always be a third party involved when any same sex couple raises a child. That makes them the equivalent of a broken home, not an intract, natural home. The idea is to keep that to a minimum, not encourage it.

You are a lesbian. You cannot possibly give birth without a male's assistance, even if he is anonymous. Your child will one day ask you about him. What will your reply be?

 

[LuckyDan]

Personally,I'd rather be fair then right.
By the way,I'm black,my wife is white.
Until about 40 years ago that wasn't considered "natural" either.
My father fought,was put in jail,beaten,had dogs sicced on him,waterhosed,and almost lynched by people who considered themselves "conservatives" who didn't believe that blacks having the same rights as whites was "natural".

Just saying.

I'm white. My wife is Mexican.

We're both strait.

FYI.

 

[Verthaine]

I'm white. My wife is Mexican.

We're both strait.

FYI.

So what.
And your point being?

Me and my wife are both straight.

I can't procreate,are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to be married?
Just asking?

 

[Your Star]

They simply don't need it. They cannot procreate. They can form a semblance of a family, yes, but only artificially. There will always be a third party involved when any same sex couple raises a child. That makes them the equivalent of a broken home, not an intract, natural home. The idea is to keep that to a minimum, not encourage it.

You are a lesbian. You cannot possibly give birth without a male's assistance, even if he is anonymous. Your child will one day ask you about him. What will your reply be?

So you would agree that infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because they don't "need it"?

It doesn't matter about how we become a family, it only matters that we are a family. Marriage does not benefit procreation, it benefits families, and no matter how one becomes a family, they deserve those benefits if they wish to enter into a legal marriage. You still have not answered my question, why should my family, be denied the legal benefits of marriage simply due to the fact in how it was formed?

 

[Verthaine]

And even if I could procreate,and me and my wife choose not to,are you saying we shouldn't be married?

 

[LuckyDan]

Marriage is already a broken idealology that most people can't abide by and don't cleave to. . . though I should note that the divorce rate has dropped to that equal of the 'golden 50's' that everyone touts.

so what the hell, cheapen it further.

always I notice that people who favor SSM don't give a rat's ass about marriage to begin with.

 

[Verthaine]

so what the hell, cheapen it further.

always I notice that people who favor SSM don't give a rat's ass about marriage to begin with.

I've been married to my wife for 27 years.
And I favor SSM.

 

[Your Star]

so what the hell, cheapen it further.

always I notice that people who favor SSM don't give a rat's ass about marriage to begin with.

Answer me this, How in the hell does SSM cheapen the institution?

 

[LuckyDan]

And even if I could procreate,and me and my wife choose not to,are you saying we shouldn't be married?

If you are a man and she is a woman, no, I'm not saying that. There is no fitness to procreate test as of yet, but the way things are going, that might be a compromise proposal some day.

And you know what? Even if it passes, SSMers will still bitch. It ain't about kids. It's about respect. They think marriage will get it for them.

 

[Verthaine]

If you are a man and she is a woman, no, I'm not saying that. There is no fitness to procreate test as of yet, but the way things are going, that might be a compromise proposal some day.

And you know what? Even if it passes, SSMers will still bitch. It ain't about kids. It's about respect. They think marriage will get it for them.

So what.
What give you the right to determine who gets married as long as it is consenting adults.

 

[Verthaine]

The civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's wasn't about the right to eat a hamburger next to a white guy.
It was about respect.

 

[LuckyDan]

Answer me this, How in the hell does SSM cheapen the institution?

I'm tempted to say, "If you can't see that, then . . . wow . . .just . . . wow."

Because the institution is about joining a man and a woman together, and recognizing them and their offspring as a family. What benefit do we have as a society in recognizing you and your wife?

And I ask again, why in the hell do you want it?

 

[LuckyDan]

The civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's wasn't about the right to eat a hamburger next to a white guy.
It was about respect.

Do you really see a parallel between being black in the 50s and 60s and being gay in 2011? No ****?

 

[LuckyDan]

So what.
What give you the right to determine who gets married as long as it is consenting adults.

I might ask what gives you the right to redefine for an entire counrty which marriages will be recognized?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- People who divorce have failed at marriage.

Far too simplistic to explain rape within marriage, brutality towards the other partner, simply growing apart. You would do better to phrase this as "their marriage has failed" - it doesn't work the other way, especially if you believe the purpose of "marriage" is to have children.

-- They may or may not have produced children. If they have, they are doing great damage by divorcing.

Parents who stay together "for the sake of the children" often do more harm. The kids pick up on the hatred and anger. My ex wife and I see our kids, they actually live with me now after a few years with her. The kids have two loving parents who wish the best for them and are both striving to keep them on the path to success.

-- Marriage is serious business. So is family. You guys just want to **** with it for some social status points. I'm out of patience with the lot of you.

Family is more important to me than marriage but that's personal. My desire for all to be allowed the full legal and civil benefits of "marriage" is more about mutual respect and equality than fairness.

-- Marriage is between one man and one woman --

Polyandry, polygamy etc are equally marriage in other parts of the world.

-- I'm not sure whether it is time for me to retire from the SSM debate, or just post a thread identifying all of the standard anti arguments and all of the easy counters for each of them.--

A stickified thread of all the standard arguments would be useful. Walking away or retiring is the wrong thing to do as there are alweays new members such as LuckDan who seem stuck in the 17th Century.

 

[LuckyDan]

Far too simplistic to explain rape within marriage, brutality towards the other partner, simply growing apart. You would do better to phrase this as "their marriage has failed" - it doesn't work the other way, especially if you believe the purpose of "marriage" is to have children.



Parents who stay together "for the sake of the children" often do more harm. The kids pick up on the hatred and anger. My ex wife and I see our kids, they actually live with me now after a few years with her. The kids have two loving parents who wish the best for them and are both striving to keep them on the path to success.



Family is more important to me than marriage but that's personal. My desire for all to be allowed the full legal and civil benefits of "marriage" is more about mutual respect and equality than fairness.



Polyandry, polygamy etc are equally marriage in other parts of the world.



A stickified thread of all the standard arguments would be useful. Walking away or retiring is the wrong thing to do as there are alweays new members such as LuckDan who seem stuck in the 17th Century.

You're right.

Thanks for setting me strait.

I feel so foolish now.

Forgive me.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- What benefit do we have as a society in recognizing you and your wife?

And I ask again, why in the hell do you want it?

The same benefit that anyone else has - equality. It's supposedly one of the principles of most western democracies.

The economic benefit argument is simple - adoption and care agencies try to place children with families, as CT pointed out earlier, 65,000 kids in the US are with same sex families. That, compared to those same kids being in care homes and the brutalities that come from that is a huge saving in costs now (cheaper to be with a family than with a care home) and in the future (therapy, crime etc)

Or do you have another solution for all those kids awaiting adoption?