|
|
On May 10 2012 11:07 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:00 naastyOne wrote:
Adoption is covered by another program and is not covered by marriage at all. What the fuck? You've made the argument that marriage is about protecting children. Since when do adopted children or children born from surrogacy not need the same protection? Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:00 naastyOne wrote:
The fact that many don`t have children doesn`t cancel the fact that it is about the childred. Actually, yes it does. You're arguing that gay people don't deserve marriage because they can't have children. Aside from the fact that they do have children through surrogacy/previous partners/adoption, there's also the fact that plenty of straight couples can't have kids, yet we don't deny them marriage. Either having children is a requirement for marriage or it isn't. You can't agree that it isn't a requirement, and then use that requirement to ban gays from marrying. That's complete double standard bullshit. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:00 naastyOne wrote:
But okay, of course you can obviously state in which way absence of gay marriage creates disadvantages for Gays other than inability to say that they are married? Separate but equal is not equal; we established this decades ago. If it's really not a problem, why are you so adamant that they aren't allowed to call themselves married?
That is responsibility of adoption laws. You know, no institution is supposed to take care of everything.
Well, it was not that way when marriage established as such. The freakingly low fertility is the issue of maybe 30 last years.
The legal system only shows how slow it is to adopt to reality.
To focus the government support where it needed. Would you argue that having benefits/tax benefits for disabled is not fair, and should be lifted/extended?
Maybe we should expand the unemployment benefits to employed persons, after all "Separate but equal is not equal".
|
Also, I`m watching Day9 sorry i`m not responding for now.
|
On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank?
So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way.
|
On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote:
Ofcourse you can claim that the loudest voice is religious, but quite a lot of people just thinks that marriage is exactly the creation of family between man and woman to make parenting easier and as such should be left as is, while the gay can manage their own business the way they want. Try backing that up with a citation. Oh, that's right, you can't, because every organization opposed to gay marriage is religious. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote:
Again, marriage is a formal thing, that is done for specific purpose, by the state/community, and as such can be perfectly fine as it is, like Driver licenses, foreign passports, various licenses and documents, ex, ex, ex.
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? Every single argument against gay marriage is either complete crap or relies on religion as its basis (though to be honest, the latter is really a subset of the former).
1. Why is everyone else required to "cite" claims, when you made the claim and others are merely doubting it? Also, it's a false claim... very false.
2. There are many traditionalists out there that aren't religious. My grandmother, for example, was incredulous that a black person could be elected president. She's not racist or bigoted, just what would be described as "old fashioned." She grew up in an era where certain things just "didn't happen." Lots of older people are that way.
There are also many who consider gays to be sexual deviants, not necessarily based on a book or religion. There are also societal reasons -- keeping birthrates at certain levels. There are those who hold conflicting views such as myself. As I've expressed in another thread, I support gay civil unions, yet oppose "marriage" or gay adoption. And none of that is on a religious basis.
|
On May 10 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
There are also many who consider gays to be sexual deviants, not necessarily based on a book or religion. There are also societal reasons -- keeping birthrates at certain levels. There are those who hold conflicting views such as myself. As I've expressed in another thread, I support gay civil unions, yet oppose "marriage" or gay adoption. And none of that is on a religious basis.
The only possible way you would get more children through banning gay marriage would be if gay people, being unable to marry each other, would be more inclined to settle for heterosexual sex and then have babies. Which... doesn't seem like it would be happening anyway, so I think it's safe to say that this argument, at least, should be moot.
|
On May 10 2012 12:18 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
There are also many who consider gays to be sexual deviants, not necessarily based on a book or religion. There are also societal reasons -- keeping birthrates at certain levels. There are those who hold conflicting views such as myself. As I've expressed in another thread, I support gay civil unions, yet oppose "marriage" or gay adoption. And none of that is on a religious basis.
The only possible way you would get more children through banning gay marriage would be if gay people, being unable to marry each other, would be more inclined to settle for heterosexual sex and then have babies. Which... doesn't seem like it would be happening anyway, so I think it's safe to say that this argument, at least, should be moot.
I firmly disagree, but whatever.
|
On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way.
Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them.
Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period.
|
On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period.
Naasty (nice name btw), what about heterosexual people who get married and then refuse to have kids? Do you un-marry them? What if they say they plan on having kids when they don't really plan on anything? Your whole premise is that marriage somehow promotes children but it doesn't. If people want to have kids they will have kids, marriage or no marriage. It goes the opposite way as well, you can't force people to have children.
So instead you provide incentives which by your approximation don't work. Your argument is baseless and so full of holes you have to jump around to try and make some obscure point.
|
On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period.
I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved.
|
On May 10 2012 12:18 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
There are also many who consider gays to be sexual deviants, not necessarily based on a book or religion. There are also societal reasons -- keeping birthrates at certain levels. There are those who hold conflicting views such as myself. As I've expressed in another thread, I support gay civil unions, yet oppose "marriage" or gay adoption. And none of that is on a religious basis.
The only possible way you would get more children through banning gay marriage would be if gay people, being unable to marry each other, would be more inclined to settle for heterosexual sex and then have babies. Which... doesn't seem like it would be happening anyway, so I think it's safe to say that this argument, at least, should be moot.
Incorrect. In many times, and places, like ancient Greece, Rome, medieval Europe, ex, ex, the gay man were often married, had children, and had a men lower.
Back then, marriage&children was universally held as must have, and guess what?
Gays hanged in just fine. Marriage and family for duty, lover for pleasure.
|
According to political scientists, Obama's predicted vote= 51.71+.54(gdp growth second quarter)+.11(net approval). Looks to me like he'll win with about 53% (though second quarter isn't over yet).
|
On May 10 2012 12:33 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. Naasty (nice name btw), what about heterosexual people who get married and then refuse to have kids? Do you un-marry them? What if they say they plan on having kids when they don't really plan on anything? Your whole premise is that marriage somehow promotes children but it doesn't. If people want to have kids they will have kids, marriage or no marriage. It goes the opposite way as well, you can't force people to have children. So instead you provide incentives which by your approximation don't work. Your argument is baseless and so full of holes you have to jump around to try and make some obscure point.
Incentivise them to enter mariage in one way, and directly incentivise them ho have kids with additional bonuses.
How exactly did you came up with the conclusion that they do not work?
I mean of course nothing is perfect and all, but the choice to have children is very well affected by variety of things, like woman prioritising carer over family, people afraid they can not afford to have child, the inconvenience created by the divorce system, ex, ex,ex.(i guess there is a crapload of studies on the issue of you want)
The incentive that is given by the marriage is there, and it IS having effect, but it is not the ONLY thing that effect it.
It is like gas prices. while US is big&importaint, there are factors outside US that can influence gas prices that are outside the reach of US government.
|
On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved.
I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances.
Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post
(single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US),
only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted.
And it is so sad.
|
United States301 Posts
On May 10 2012 12:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:18 Funnytoss wrote:On May 10 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
There are also many who consider gays to be sexual deviants, not necessarily based on a book or religion. There are also societal reasons -- keeping birthrates at certain levels. There are those who hold conflicting views such as myself. As I've expressed in another thread, I support gay civil unions, yet oppose "marriage" or gay adoption. And none of that is on a religious basis.
The only possible way you would get more children through banning gay marriage would be if gay people, being unable to marry each other, would be more inclined to settle for heterosexual sex and then have babies. Which... doesn't seem like it would be happening anyway, so I think it's safe to say that this argument, at least, should be moot. I firmly disagree, but whatever.
Could you explain how banning gay marriage would increase the birth rate then? It might be more productive than "firmly disagreeing". Also what restrictions do you wish to apply to adoption? Do you think single parents are fit to adopt?
|
On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad.
What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages?
At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage.
|
On May 10 2012 10:08 TheToast wrote:
I don't necessarily agree with you, but you've got the starting point for a logical argument here. Some issues remain though, what about men and women who marry without the intent to have children (and never do)? They still get a federal tax break, can share insurance benefits, and can have other perks like a shared bank account. How do you factor those into your argument?
Well, firs i`m not convinced that couples that get married&live togather the rest of life and have no children are very small minority, and even though they have no children, they in vay better position to change mind than unmarried persons, so with proper initiative the (imo) already low percent can be rendered negligible.
|
On May 10 2012 13:01 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:27 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:18 Funnytoss wrote:On May 10 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
There are also many who consider gays to be sexual deviants, not necessarily based on a book or religion. There are also societal reasons -- keeping birthrates at certain levels. There are those who hold conflicting views such as myself. As I've expressed in another thread, I support gay civil unions, yet oppose "marriage" or gay adoption. And none of that is on a religious basis.
The only possible way you would get more children through banning gay marriage would be if gay people, being unable to marry each other, would be more inclined to settle for heterosexual sex and then have babies. Which... doesn't seem like it would be happening anyway, so I think it's safe to say that this argument, at least, should be moot. I firmly disagree, but whatever. Could you explain how banning gay marriage would increase the birth rate then? It might be more productive than "firmly disagreeing". Also what restrictions do you wish to apply to adoption? Do you think single parents are fit to adopt?
I'm not having that debate here, you can look up some of my other posts if you truly, deeply, actually care what I think. I think it's in the primary thread. I don't really need some haughty "you're wrong, you must prove personal opinions with studies" response here.
It's off-topic and quite frankly, irrelevant to the topic. And the past few posts have given a few of many answers which give some of the reasons you'd oppose for social reasons. Not that I hold the same view, but I was just making the point that the only reason to not support it is religion or bigotry.
|
On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage.
It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights.
Religious people want marraige, gays want equal rights. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Yet both sides act like they are, for reasons that baffle me (and apparently the President too, based on his musings in that interview).
|
This is a perfect example of how one shit poster can completely derail a thread and get people to respond to him for 3 pages. Great posts get no responses, garbage posts get 9 responses. lol...
|
On May 10 2012 09:25 1Eris1 wrote:
Marriage should just be done by the churches anyway. That way everyone can be happy. Now, can we get back on topic please?
The churches have zero say in marriage. Why should they? The church can't grant any benefits to people who get married. Marriage, as viewed by the state, is a contract. A married couple gains certain rights that involve their partner that they otherwise wouldn't get. Homosexual couples have issues with their insurance, funeral rights, medical decisions involving their partner, and a plethora of other problems because they can't get married.
There isn't one logical reason at all to prevent gay marriage. Period. The only reasons you wouldn't be for gay marriage are because of your religious views or because you're homophobic. It baffles me that not even 50 years ago you couldn't marry someone that was of a different race in many states and yet we still have this issue with gay marriage and with people still opposing it for the same reasons why they opposed inter-racial marriage.
Jerry Falwell Used the Bible To Justify Segregation and Criticize Interracial Marriage. In 1958, Falwell gave a sermon on segregation, stating that "The true Negro does not want integration... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race... It will destroy our race eventually... In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife... It boils down to whether we are going to take God's Word as final." Jerry Falwell is not the moral majority. He was and is the lunatic fringe.
Falwell is probably the main reason why religion is so heavily involved with politics today. He accepted his loss when inter-racial marriage became legalized practically everywhere and almost over night switched his hatred to homosexual marriage. After 9/11 Falwell said,
"the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians – who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle – the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
This man was the leader of the moral majority before he passed away. This man influenced millions of Christians to vote with their religion. This man mixed religion and politics in a way never seen before. The fact that people are trying to claim that this isn't about religion or that there are good reasons to prevent gay marriage will be just like the racists who tried to stop inter-racial marriage. History will remember you for what you are, bigoted, ignorant, and homophobic.
And this has everything to do with the Presidential election. After the bill in NC passed and Obama gave his support to gay marriage that's going to be probably the second biggest issue of this election right behind the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
