"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[brightmorningstar]

I would treat the black person just like I treat the white person, but I wouldn’t treat them both as black people.

 

[b&wpac4]

I would treat the black person just like I treat the white person, but I wouldn’t treat them both as black people.

There's a contradiction there.

Let me make it a little more obvious:

I eat steak and chicken the exact same way, but I don't eat steak like I eat chicken....

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

I eat steak and chicken the exact same way, but I don't eat steak like I eat chicken....

You may notice chicken and steak are not the same, neither is a same sex couple the same as a male/female one.
Different combination and different functional possibilities. I wouldn’t expect to order chicken in a restaurant and get beef only to be told they are the same they are both meet.

 

[WiredSpirit]

But I only like white meat, so what's wrong with that.

 

[IzzyPop]

I would treat the black person just like I treat the white person, but I wouldn’t treat them both as black people.

Wow. That does nothing to clear it up. You just reiterated the contradiction. Either you treat them the same and there is no reason to have a 'but' in your statement, or you don't and the first part of the sentence is false.

If A=B, then B=A. You are stating that A=B, but B=/=A.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Either you treat them the same and there is no reason to have a 'but' in your statement, or you don't and the first part of the sentence is false.

If A=B, then B=A. You are stating that A=B, but B=/=A.

Not so,I treat the black person the same as the white person, I treat them the same though they are different ethnic origin. Why don’t you do that? If you do what is your argument? If you dont please say why?

 

[b&wpac4]

Not so,I treat the black person the same as the white person, I treat them the same though they are different ethnic origin. Why don’t you do that? If you do what is your argument? If you dont please say why?

I think I understand you, but you must understand that your communication skills are sometimes lacking and it makes it hard for us to understand what you are getting at. Your previous post basically said: "I treat black and white people the same, but I wouldn't treat a white person like a black person." That BUT in there means you don't treat them the same, but different somehow. If that's not what you mean, the but clause needs to go away.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To B&wpac4,
I dont think my communication skills are lacking, some posters have absolutely no trouble understanding me but do have trouble understanding you.

eop and it makes it hard for us to understand what you are getting at. Your previous post basically said: "I treat black and white people the same, but I wouldn't treat a white person like a black person." That BUT in there means you don't treat them the same, but different somehow. If that's not what you mean, the but clause needs to go away.

perhaps if you addressed my last remark it would clarify it for you.

 

[b&wpac4]

To B&wpac4,
I dont think my communication skills are lacking, some posters have absolutely no trouble understanding me but do have trouble understanding you.

Name one.

 

[beechy]

To Beechy,

Your statement is not quite right. The people you consider ‘gay’ can get married, its just that they don’t want to as their sexual desires are for same sex.

Insofar as marriage is about the very personal decision to commit yourself to a partner of your choosing, and a gay person wouldn't choose an opposite sex partner (as you've acknowledged), a law which restricts people from marrying same sex partners effectively restricts the ability of gay people to marry the partner they would choose. Before the law does something so impactful, it should have a permissible reason for doing so.

Furthermore the ability to reproduce is the difference, I wouldn’t say it was a pre-requisite. If you think it should be a prerequisite then under your view same sex couples wouldn’t get married anyway so I don’t see what your point is.

It is not a prerequisite, it has never been a prerequisite, and I don't think it should be a prerequisite. But when you say the reason same and opposite sex couples should be treated differently with respect to marriage laws is because the former can't reproduce and the latter can, your position doesn't make sense unless all heterosexual couples can reproduce and/or marriage laws limit the marriage relationship to those who can.

On the contrary, not all heterosexual couples can reproduce, and marriage laws don't say anything about whether a couple needs to be able to reproduce in order to get married and/or have kids.

So a couple's ability to reproduce is not material to the marriage discussion.

So would you consider animals as human parents? Sorry Again I don’t really see how your point is credible.

You're the one who brought up animals. I have no idea what they have to do with anything.

But I am contesting it is, its crucial and not to recognise it is dangerously a move away from recognising reality.

I don’t warrant treating them any different, except I wouldn’t want to treat them both as white or both as black, I would recognise the difference.
You are comparing apples and oranges if one of the kids formed a same sex sexual relationship and the other a normal one with the opposite sex I would recognise the difference.

I can find differences and similarities in any two things, people, relationships, etc. etc. The issue is whether those differences are material in the sense that they warrant different treatment under the law. What is different about homosexual and heterosexual couples which justifies them being treated differently under the law? You seem to think it has something to do with reproductive ability. But, as discussed above, marriage laws treat heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce the same as heterosexual couples who can reproduce. The question then becomes, why should the law treat homosexual couples who cannot reproduce differently than heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce?

 

[Shane Roach]

Because the kids come from heterosexuals. People are supposed to marry, have kids, and raise them. If marriage is to encourage this, it has to be about heterosexuals.

Why? because they reproduce.

Your parsing things in a most transparent manner. Everyone here knows why marriage has always been for heterosexuals, and it is not because of bigotry. It's because that's where families come from.

I personally am now convinced even civil unions are bad. Clearly no one on the gay marriage side cares about kids. "Why do you allow sterile people to marry then?"

The first time it was almost relevant. After 1000 times it becomes clear it is just a smoke screen. It's not even mildly difficult to put the pieces together here. This is just another case of our politicians victimizing one group of people in order to get votes from another.

 

[beechy]

Because the kids come from heterosexuals. People are supposed to marry, have kids, and raise them. If marriage is to encourage this, it has to be about heterosexuals.

Why? because they reproduce.

I disagree that marriage is set up to encourage people to have kids and raise them. I think marriage (insofar as it is about kids) is set up to encourage people who want to have kids to raise them in a stable family structure. Homosexuals have and raise kids all the time, so there's no reason they should not be encouraged to raise, provide, and care for those kids within a committed marriage relationship. I know you don't like the idea that gay couples have and raise kids, but it's a reality.

Your parsing things in a most transparent manner. Everyone here knows why marriage has always been for heterosexuals, and it is not because of bigotry. It's because that's where families come from.

I personally am now convinced even civil unions are bad. Clearly no one on the gay marriage side cares about kids. "Why do you allow sterile people to marry then?"

The first time it was almost relevant. After 1000 times it becomes clear it is just a smoke screen. It's not even mildly difficult to put the pieces together here. This is just another case of our politicians victimizing one group of people in order to get votes from another.

Homosexual couples are starting families and raising children. There aren't any reliable statistics about how many such couples are out there, but it is in the millions. It's not a smoke screen -- they are real human beings.

 

[IzzyPop]

Because the kids come from heterosexuals.

I am living proof you are wrong.

People are supposed to marry, have kids, and raise them. If marriage is to encourage this, it has to be about heterosexuals.

Why? because they reproduce.

So do homosexuals.

Your parsing things in a most transparent manner. Everyone here knows why marriage has always been for heterosexuals, and it is not because of bigotry. It's because that's where families come from.

Except for those families that have homosexual parents.

I personally am now convinced even civil unions are bad. Clearly no one on the gay marriage side cares about kids. "Why do you allow sterile people to marry then?"

That is a perfectly valid question. You and brightmorningstar are the ones bringing fertility into the equation. We are merely pointing out where the flaws in your logic are.

The first time it was almost relevant. After 1000 times it becomes clear it is just a smoke screen. It's not even mildly difficult to put the pieces together here. This is just another case of our politicians victimizing one group of people in order to get votes from another.

And who is victimized when same sex couples get married?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

And who is victimized when same sex couples get married?

pretty much everyone. Especially the child though, since they are being deprived of a mother or father figure. Could have eventual long term effects on their development due to a major missing component.

Familys too. Since they are unable to pass on their blood line anymore. And heritage is important to a good amount of people and their identity.

 

[FedererFan]

pretty much everyone. Especially the child though, since they are being deprived of a mother or father figure. Could have eventual long term effects on their development due to a major missing component.

Pretty much everyone? How?!

Do you support the law providing for divorce?

 

[IzzyPop]

pretty much everyone. Especially the child though, since they are being deprived of a mother or father figure. Could have eventual long term effects on their development due to a major missing component.

Cn you please tell me what long term effects I am suffering from? Feel free to be specific.

Familys too. Since they are unable to pass on their blood line anymore. And heritage is important to a good amount of people and their identity.

And if you care about heritage and all, then I suggest you carry on your bloodline. But for people that opt not to, or cannot, why should they be denied benefits based on that?

 

[beechy]

pretty much everyone. Especially the child though, since they are being deprived of a mother or father figure. Could have eventual long term effects on their development due to a major missing component.

Familys too. Since they are unable to pass on their blood line anymore. And heritage is important to a good amount of people and their identity.

The child is "victimized" (by your definition) whether or not his same-sex parents are allowed to get married, because the question of whether gay people can get married is separate from the question of whether gay people should be allowed to raise children. Gay couples are currently raising children without the benefit of marriage. How does letting those couples get married further vicitimize their existing and future children? Do you think those kids would be better off if their same-sex parents remained unmarried?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Because the kids come from heterosexuals. People are supposed to marry, have kids, and raise them. If marriage is to encourage this, it has to be about heterosexuals.

Because same gendered couples don’t marry, don’t have children and don’t raise children…oh wait…same gendered couples DO marry, DO have children and DO raise children

Why? because they reproduce.

And that is why infertile heterosexuals should not have the legal right to get married…right? Or is that somehow different?

Your parsing things in a most transparent manner. Everyone here knows why marriage has always been for heterosexuals, and it is not because of bigotry. It's because that's where families come from.

I personally am now convinced even civil unions are bad. Clearly no one on the gay marriage side cares about kids.

Except all the same gendered couples with kids…and those who want kids

"Why do you allow sterile people to marry then?"

Why should “fertility” be used as a means of justifying discrimination against a minority group but at the same time not be applied to the majority? If the ability to biologically reproduce is justification against same sex marriage then it should equally apply to heterosexuals who cannot biologically reproduce

 

[BigBadWlf]

pretty much everyone. Especially the child though, since they are being deprived of a mother or father figure. Could have eventual long term effects on their development due to a major missing component.

And evidence for this?

Well such evidence doesn’t exist

 

[Shane Roach]

Because same gendered couples don’t marry, don’t have children and don’t raise children…oh wait…same gendered couples DO marry, DO have children and DO raise children


And that is why infertile heterosexuals should not have the legal right to get married…right? Or is that somehow different?


Except all the same gendered couples with kids…and those who want kids


Why should “fertility” be used as a means of justifying discrimination against a minority group but at the same time not be applied to the majority? If the ability to biologically reproduce is justification against same sex marriage then it should equally apply to heterosexuals who cannot biologically reproduce

No one argues fertility is the issue except gay marriage activists. It is about the ability to deal directly with the issue of children actually being born and the related issues between those who are capable of doing any such thing.

As has been pointed out numerous times, since marriage is supposed to happen before sex, it would be inconvenient to ever discover someone was sterile until afterwards.

In some cultures, it has indeed been grounds for divorce, so that more or less completes the circle. If you want it to be grounds for automatic state enforced divorce, be my guest.