|
On May 30 2009 07:34 JWD wrote:It's important to note that the California Supreme Court had its hands tied somewhat in this case, because it makes its rulings based on the CA Constitution (and Prop 8 amends the CA Constitution to prohibit gay marriage). Here's the gist of the majority opinion: Show nested quote +In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. Basically, the Court was not in a position to rule for or against gay marriage per se, and thus their ruling should not be interpreted as the Court taking a position on gay marriage. California's direct democracy measures are responsible for much more damage than Proposition 8 - there's an interesting article in last week's Economist that sums up how propositions and initiatives have led to legislative gridlock and massive budget problems in CA. It's recommended reading for any Californian and an interesting case study in the shortcomings of direct democracy.
Did anyone see the last Real Time with Bill Maher?
"No one can govern this state(California) because it's illegal to do it. We govern by ballot initiative. And we only write two kinds of those: spend money on things I like; and don't raise my taxes. We vote yes on gain, no on pain.
This is why America's founders wanted a representative democracy. Because they knew if you gave the average guy the chance, he'd vote for a fantasy world with no taxes, free beer and vagina trees"
ahhh classic
|
United States2497 Posts
On May 30 2009 07:34 JWD wrote:California's direct democracy measures are responsible for much more damage than Proposition 8 - there's an interesting article in last week's Economist that sums up how propositions and initiatives have led to legislative gridlock and massive budget problems in CA. It's recommended reading for any Californian and an interesting case study in the shortcomings of direct democracy.
The special election almost definitely cost more money than what will be saved from the one proposition that passed. What a farce.
|
EDIT:
Psh fuck it. Just let it be known, I'm from Texas and I'm not a "red-neck".
|
I know numerous gay/bi/queer types. Sometimes it seems like half the girls I know are bi. I like these people and wish for their happiness, and that is why I oppose proposition 8.
|
On May 30 2009 07:51 selboN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 07:47 AttackZerg wrote:
I can't believe gay marriage keeps getting denied =(. Its so embarassing for me. I am very proud of where I'm from but if the most liberal state can't even treat people as equals what hope do all the crappy-redneck states in the bible belt have.
I am not educated enough to really discuss all the court related stuff. I simply have voted 2 times in four years to try and legalize gay marriage and it hasn't worked out =(. So, what "crappy-redneck states" are you referring to? I think your lack of education goes deeper than just your ignorance to the legal system.
Actually is it based off of travel, I used lack of education as a way of avoid a detailed discussion that wouldn't mean anything to me.
All of the crap states include ..... get real man I'm not setting that one up.
Sorry but being white and looking mexican and traveling east and not north taught me alot about how many really terrible parts there are to this country?
Why so defensive are you from one of those crappy redneck states?
|
On May 30 2009 08:02 selboN wrote:
EDIT:
Psh fuck it. Just let it be known, I'm from Texas and I'm not a "red-neck".
Texas is not a crappy state. I was treated very kind there.
Also if you live in dallas I envy you, hottest girls I've ever seen!
|
On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No.
You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it.
Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit
If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them.
As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html
Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right.
If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ?
Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general.
Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily.
If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based.
|
On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based.
Im not hateful at all, and no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. You appeared to have missed my point completely. I am talking about a specific sacred bond, that is between a man and a women that help carry on the human race. I am not saying gays can't have a sacred bond, I am just saying that the bond they have shouldn't be called marraige. The definition of marraige is clearly laid out in my post.
You talk about the strawman fallacy at the end of your post yet your whole reply was fallacious. Your accusing of being hateful, putting words in my mouth, and picking out certain parts of my argument.
Why don't u try responding the evolutionary reason to why humans have marraige in the first place? Then we can have a good argument.
|
On May 30 2009 07:54 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 07:51 selboN wrote:On May 30 2009 07:47 AttackZerg wrote:
I can't believe gay marriage keeps getting denied =(. Its so embarassing for me. I am very proud of where I'm from but if the most liberal state can't even treat people as equals what hope do all the crappy-redneck states in the bible belt have.
I am not educated enough to really discuss all the court related stuff. I simply have voted 2 times in four years to try and legalize gay marriage and it hasn't worked out =(. So, what "crappy-redneck states" are you referring to? I think your lack of education goes deeper than just your ignorance to the legal system. Bullshit. Education has nothing to do with culturing. Anyone who has traveled the USA can attest to what the difference in cultural differences between a state like New York and a state like Tennessee. He is absolutely correct, if not a bit harsh. Nothing but the courts is stopping Gay Marriage in California - only thing stopping them is the monetary support coming in from the Mormons in Utah.
...and the people?
|
The government in general needs to get out of the business of marriage. It has no place in it. Abolish the whole system and give civil unions to everybody with the same benefits and privilages.
If it insists on having legal marriages then refusing to allow homosexuals to marry goes against everything that this country was founded on and people have fought for so many years to gain. If we preach equality then that is what we need, true equality. Don't give me this civil unions for gays and marriage for straight people. Separate but equal is never equal. And for those people that suggest this will lead to things such as polygamy, who are you to decide that polygamy is wrong? If the people involved love each other then stay the fuck out of their business. Your church has every right to stop anybody they want from getting married, the government does not. I have no problem with people who believe that gay marriage is wrong, that's their right. Everyone has the right to their own values and opinions. But the second they try pushing their beliefs and values on everybody else who is different from them, then I have a big BIG problem with it. The sanctity of marriage is bullshit. I've seen so many devout christian evangelists who are married in the most disgusting relationships you can imagine. Spouses that barely tolerate each other, if even that, domestic abuse... the sanctity of marriage is a sham. What gives people that hate each other the right to marry yet people that love each other can't? That's just not right. If the precious bible is your only moral compass then take a look at the story of Lot. The man got plastered and fucked his daughters and he is a major religious figure.
|
Doesn't the constitution give equal rights to all people regardless of their sexual orientation?
Doesn't the constitution apply to all citizens, or even all people, in all states?
So then that's the dispute?
Anyway, I don't understand what the role of the state is in this anyway. If churches don't want to recognize these marriages, fine. That's their choise. But how can the state even deny them from marrying? I understand a married couple receive tax benefits, which is already strange in itself, but besides that can't people just have a party with their friends and declare themselves married? That is how it has been all throughout history. Marriage is something between two people. All throughout history in every culture religious institutions and governments never had any role in marriage. Sure, back then it was the two fathers or families. But in the modern world all you need is 2 people.
|
On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. Im not hateful at all, and no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. You appeared to have missed my point completely. I am talking about a specific sacred bond, that is between a man and a women that help carry on the human race. I am not saying gays can't have a sacred bond, I am just saying that the bond they have shouldn't be called marraige. The definition of marraige is clearly laid out in my post. You talk about the strawman fallacy at the end of your post yet your whole reply was fallacious. Your accusing of being hateful, putting words in my mouth, and picking out certain parts of my argument. Why don't u try responding the evolutionary reason to why humans have marraige in the first place? Then we can have a good argument.
What is the sacred bond you speak of that is supposedly going to carry on the human race? I'm seriously not getting it at all. And I'm even more baffled by this evolutionary reason to marriage. DO you even understand evolution at all? If anything, you could make a case for marriage going against humans' evolutionary drive to propogate their genes and not stay confined to the same partner. This may be reflected in high divorce rates and the amount of cheating you see in many couples' relationships. Of course there are many other reasons to this, but stop spewing your bullshit about marriage and it having an evolutionary function because I highly doubt there is any strong case for this, or at least one which seems already validated like you claim it to be.
|
Sigh, pretty much everything I think about gay marriage has been said.
Let them have the damned marriage and stop denying their rights as American's, thank you very much. If you have to change the title of "marriage" for gay people, let it be...but I would wager it would only be temporary. This will turn out to be a(nother) sad stain on what is American history. Now let's get back to worrying about REAL issues...ie: the recession.
|
On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. Im not hateful at all, and no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. You appeared to have missed my point completely. I am talking about a specific sacred bond, that is between a man and a women that help carry on the human race. I am not saying gays can't have a sacred bond, I am just saying that the bond they have shouldn't be called marraige. The definition of marraige is clearly laid out in my post. You talk about the strawman fallacy at the end of your post yet your whole reply was fallacious. Your accusing of being hateful, putting words in my mouth, and picking out certain parts of my argument. Why don't u try responding the evolutionary reason to why humans have marraige in the first place? Then we can have a good argument.
There is no evolutionary reason humans have an institution of marriage. Its made up. In fact humans are not even naturally monogamous. There have been numerous studies on the subject and our brains aren't' wired that way. Humans are perfectly capable of reproducing without marriage, something readily apparent in today's society where pregnancy out of wedlock is commonplace. If the goal of marriage is to produce children and carry on the human race then not only is that flawed logic in the first place but the goal of producing children is far better accomplished with multiple partners. As I said, religious institutions have every right to deny marriage to whomever they please, but if a government founded on equality for everyone wants a piece of the action then they damn well better be prepared for true equality.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to.
Oh come on:
On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family.
On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No.
"Marriage is the foundation to a proper family"
"Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage"
Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me.
And I see your arguments about how heterosexuality is important for the perpetuation of the human race, but that's totally irrelevant unless you can somehow prove that legalizing gay marriage would lead to a drop in birthrates (good luck, I can't even think of a mechanism for that effect). And of course, you're operating under the assumption that more births is good, which in the 21st century is shaky ground at best.
Basically, your original post is a bunch of true statements that do not compose an argument against gay marriage. I may as well construct my argument like this:
I like bananas. Apples are good too. Should we allow gay marriage? The answer is simple. Yes.
|
On May 30 2009 08:47 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. Im not hateful at all, and no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. You appeared to have missed my point completely. I am talking about a specific sacred bond, that is between a man and a women that help carry on the human race. I am not saying gays can't have a sacred bond, I am just saying that the bond they have shouldn't be called marraige. The definition of marraige is clearly laid out in my post. You talk about the strawman fallacy at the end of your post yet your whole reply was fallacious. Your accusing of being hateful, putting words in my mouth, and picking out certain parts of my argument. Why don't u try responding the evolutionary reason to why humans have marraige in the first place? Then we can have a good argument. What is the sacred bond you speak of that is supposedly going to carry on the human race? I'm seriously not getting it at all. And I'm even more baffled by this evolutionary reason to marriage. DO you even understand evolution at all? If anything, you could make a case for marriage going against humans' evolutionary drive to propogate their genes and not stay confined to the same partner. This may be reflected in high divorce rates and the amount of cheating you see in many couples' relationships. Of course there are many other reasons to this, but stop spewing your bullshit about marriage and it having an evolutionary function because I highly doubt there is any strong case for this, or at least one which seems already validated like you claim it to be.
There is an evolutionary reason for almost everything my friend. All my arguments are valid arguments made by philisophers much more intelligent then both you and I. (We spent a few weeks on this subject in my philosophy in ethics class) In no way should anyone consider my reasons as "bullshit". You seem to be very emotionaly attached to this subject...
Yes you see cheating and high divorce rates these days, and the numbers are growing. However I guarentee that couples that have children in a marraige have a much higher chance of bearring their offspring together to a higher age vs couples that have children out of wedlock since there is much more to lose.
I am straying off subject.Your questioning this "sacred bond" like it means nothing, yet you seem to be such a strong advocate of gay "marraige". Like I said I have nothing against gay unions. It just shouldn't be called marraige. Marraige by definition is a cultural constant in which the translation is universal. Gays getting married goes against this definition and therefore should be called something else.
Saying that there is no evoltionary reason for marraige is non sense. If that is true then how can you explain tribes and cultures around the world having some form of marraige?
|
On May 30 2009 08:02 scwizard wrote:
I know numerous gay/bi/queer types. Sometimes it seems like half the girls I know are bi. I like these people and wish for their happiness, and that is why I oppose proposition 8.
So yeah that's my position, and that position makes me wonder, do people like houseurmusic know any gay people? Do they have any gay friends? Do they have any gay people that they admire?
|
On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me.
Then please, objectively define a proper family for me.
|
United States12607 Posts
First off, LEARN TO SPELL MARRIAGE BEFORE YOU TRY TO ENTER A DEBATE ABOUT IT
|
On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me.
You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
