A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

[Clem is Me]

Well, that normalizing it will cause more youngsters to consider experimentation and relationships with the same sex. By making homosexuality deviant or abnormal it may, in theory, keep more people from considering it.

And how does this threaten my marriage or family, assuming this to be true for the sake of argument.

 

[stray bullet]

And how does this threaten my marriage or family, assuming this to be true for the sake of argument.

Well, it affects your children and may affect your chances of having grandchildren.

I am arguing from the traditional family viewpoint- that parents against same sex marriage want their families kept in the traditional fashion, with kids who marry the same sex and produce their own grandchildren.

 

[Clem is Me]

Affect is not the same as threat. And gays can have children if they wish, or adopt, so grandchildren are a very real possibility. I am still not seeing a threat.

 

[stray bullet]

Affect is not the same as threat. And gays can have children if they wish, or adopt, so grandchildren are a very real possibility. I am still not seeing a threat.

No, gays can't have kids like heterosexuals can. Two people of the same sex can't have children. Thus, one person's kid is not going to be related to their child, or in the case of adoption, neither will.

I suppose it comes down to whether you consider homosexuality wrong or not. If it is, then gay marriage is a threat to your family in the way described earlier (to some people).
If there is nothing wrong with it to you, then it isn't much of a threat.

 

[Volos]

I got $100 that says no one can.

Your $100 is really safe.

 

[Volos]

We keep citing the reasons, and you (rhetorical) only respond with, "No, we don't care what you say, only our feelings matter in this."

You haven’t cited ANY reason at all.



Exactly how will Clem’s marriage be harmed?

Exactly how will ANYONE’S marriage be harmed?



No answers….just babble about how you just KNOW that this will be the result.

It struck me earlier this evening, as I was shredding left over turkey for soup, that the underlying sin to the whole gay marriage movement is covetousness.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, there's nothing wrong with looking at somebody else's car and saying, "I want a car of my own just like that one." What is wrong is to say, "I want that car."

This is what the gay marriage advocates are doing. They don't really care about rights and tax breaks and the like; they've been offered the possibility of civil unions and they turn it down.


They want marriage because they want 200+ million people to deny in their hearts and minds what they know to be true and to say homosexual unions are on an equal par with the male-female relationship of marriage.

And you have yet to site any reason beyond your personal prejudice that my marriage is somehow inferior to your marriage or any other opposite sex marriage.

The gay marriage advocates covet marriage. They will not be satisfied until they steal it from those to whom it rightfully belongs.

The constitution of the United Sates says that we have the right (otherwise why would there be a push to amend the constitution to prohibit this right)



This week the Supreme Court upheld the legal recognition of same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The Christian coalition was trying to claim in its appeal to the Supreme Court that they were being personally hurt by the legal recognition of same sex marriage but just like you they could not actually provide any support for that claim.

Once again, none of the snowflakes wants to claim responisbility. Believe me, if gay marriage was the only issue at stake here, it would be harmless.

The notion that legal recognition of same sex marriage leads to tooth decay and lawn mower abuse is a joke.

But it's not the only issue, it's just one of many fronts where the cultural war is being fought.

Yes, civil rights for everyone are at stake. If we allow those how choose to hate to legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians it will lead invariably to removal of civil rights from religious and racial minorities.

In Holland doctors are deciding who should live and who should die. What does that do with gay marriage? Well, the same mindset that says we human beings can "reason" our way to morality re marriage also says we can "reason" our way to morality re who lives and who dies. [/qupte]
What does it have to do with legal recognition of same sex marriage….nothing.

Gay marriage is just a skirmish is a much wider war.

True. This is just one of many battles that has been fought for equality and justice for all people

P.S. Assuming you are a person of honor, now that I've shown you the harm, please send the $100 to any charity that feeds poor people.

You haven’t shown how legal recognition of same sex marriage threatens or harms Clems’s marriage and/or family at all. If you were a person of honor you would admit that

 

[Volos]

The argument is often that gay marriage attempts to normalize homosexuality and make it more acceptable in the eyes of society. In doing so, the government is promoting homosexual behavior, which people consider bad policy.

People who have children, whom they don't want in homosexual relationships, therefore, have an argument against gay marriage.

By this same token people who don’t want their children marrying a person of another race have an argument against civil rights. Should the rights of racial minorities be restricted because of the prejudices of a few? should the rights of gays and lesbians be restricted because of the prejudices of a few?

 

[Volos]

clem, does a child sold into slavery in cambodia negatively affect your marriage?

if not, why bother standing against it?

No one is claiming that it does. However many people are claiming that legal recognition of same sex marriage “harm” them in some way, that it harms individual’s marriages and individual’s families. So far no one has been able to support these claims of harm.



You seem to be trying to claim that legal recognition of same sex marriage does harm you personally. So please explain to us just how it does. Will legal recognition of same sex marriage prevent you from marrying? Will legal recognition of same sex marriage dissolve your parent’s marriage? Will legal recognition of same sex marriage prevent you form having a loving family? Just how does it harm you?

 

[Volos]

Well, it affects your children and may affect your chances of having grandchildren.

I am arguing from the traditional family viewpoint- that parents against same sex marriage want their families kept in the traditional fashion, with kids who marry the same sex and produce their own grandchildren.

Same sex marriage does not prohibit or negate the possibility of the production of grandchildren. In a few weeks my parents will become grandparents and I will be one proud Papa.

 

[JustJack!]

The argument is often that gay marriage attempts to normalize homosexuality and make it more acceptable in the eyes of society. In doing so, the government is promoting homosexual behavior, which people consider bad policy.

People who have children, whom they don't want in homosexual relationships, therefore, have an argument against gay marriage.

I tend to have less sympathy for your percieved harms when they are based on bigotry. By legalizing gay marriage, the government is not promoting it. Legitamizing it maybe, and there is no reason why millions of minorities should feel as second class humans because you disagree with their dating habits.

Again, how does allowing gay marriage force you to accept it, to allow it, to be it or alter your feelings on the issue one way or the other? Most gays will still end up getting civil unions anyways because, let's face it, most churches won't marry a gay couple.

clem, does a child sold into slavery in cambodia negatively affect your marriage?

if not, why bother standing against it?

Now if only you could show a difinitive negative of homosexuality like that. "If you allow gay marriage, then you kid will be kidnapped and sold into slavery in Cambodi!"

No, gays can't have kids like heterosexuals can. Two people of the same sex can't have children. Thus, one person's kid is not going to be related to their child, or in the case of adoption, neither will.

I suppose it comes down to whether you consider homosexuality wrong or not. If it is, then gay marriage is a threat to your family in the way described earlier (to some people).
If there is nothing wrong with it to you, then it isn't much of a threat.

You don't have to be of the same blood to be family.

 

[Clem is Me]

No, gays can't have kids like heterosexuals can. Two people of the same sex can't have children. Thus, one person's kid is not going to be related to their child, or in the case of adoption, neither will.

I suppose it comes down to whether you consider homosexuality wrong or not. If it is, then gay marriage is a threat to your family in the way described earlier (to some people).
If there is nothing wrong with it to you, then it isn't much of a threat.

Artificial ensemination. Surrugate mothers.

I submit that it is not a threat to anyone's marriage or family. Even experimenting with a gay lifestyle does not constitute a threat under the conditions I mentioned above, regardless of your beliefs. The threat, so far, is only to a single person's mental comfort. I regard a single person's mental comfort to be of less value than perserving liberty for all persons. So, it seems, does the constitution.

 

[chessterbester]

Same sex marriage does not prohibit or negate the possibility of the production of grandchildren. In a few weeks my parents will become grandparents and I will be one proud Papa.

Congratulations!

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Please now demonstrate how this threatens my marriage? If the gays get married will I lose my marrige to one of these couples? Will they lay claim to my child? Will they get my tax breaks and benefits? See, when I said "Specific" I guess I meant it. You want the $100, man of honor, you had better get after it.

By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term. It doesn't matter if heterosexuals are already doing damage to the institution; that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere.

Without a doubt gays and lesbians may form long lasting stable loving relationships; those relationships are not marriages. Marriage is the bonding of a male and a female into a unique synthesis. You can't have steel without carbon and iron, you can't have marriage without a male and a female.

(Supposed examples to the contrary are often either deliberately distorted non-sexual relations, such as blood brotherhoods, or extremely rare incidents where a male publicly takes on the role and personna of a female to marry another male thus creating a faux male/female relationship, not a male/malke one.)

While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.

Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture. When marriage is devalued, families split up, children are raised without fathers, and very quickly crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse rates, illegitimacy and divorce rates begin rising, while the children receive poorer educations and are more emotionally vulnerable.

Adding gay marriage to this culture would only continue to devalue marriage as an institution. It would further reduce the impression that marriage is something bigger than the two people involved and by extension make it less important in the eyes of succeeding generations.

Look where gay marriage has been pushed and accepted abroad. Look at how crappy their overall standards of morality are. They're native populations are plummeting and their cultures are slowly being taken over by those who do not share their values, particularly the value of gay marriage.

As I've said before, if there were no other fronts in the cultural war, gay marriage would be a minor issue. But it's not the only leak in the canoe, so to speak. We've got lotsa problems that need attending to, and gay marriage is just a tiny little leak that we can close off quickly right now before it grows larger and not have to worry about again while we tend to other, more serious problems.

Now, you (rhetorical) wanna talk about tax breaks and property rights for couples and households that aren't conventional marriages, nooooooo problem. Well be happy to discuss that and come up with something that will benefit all unmarried couples, not just the gay ones.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The constitution of the United Sates says that we have the right (otherwise why would there be a push to amend the constitution to prohibit this right)



This week the Supreme Court upheld the legal recognition of same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The Christian coalition was trying to claim in its appeal to the Supreme Court that they were being personally hurt by the legal recognition of same sex marriage but just like you they could not actually provide any support for that claim.

No, it doesn't, and no, they didn't. They declined to examine the issue now, they have reserved the right to look at it again later.

Like when there are more conservatives on the Court.

 

[stray bullet]

Artificial ensemination. Surrugate mothers.

I submit that it is not a threat to anyone's marriage or family. Even experimenting with a gay lifestyle does not constitute a threat under the conditions I mentioned above, regardless of your beliefs. The threat, so far, is only to a single person's mental comfort. I regard a single person's mental comfort to be of less value than perserving liberty for all persons. So, it seems, does the constitution.

If you believe homosexuality is wrong, then you must believe it is harmful on some level. Therefore, it presents a threat to your family.

 

[stray bullet]

And marriage is not an issue of liberty! Civil unions cover the "liberty" aspect. Marriage is something totally different.

 

[The Bellman]

Look where gay marriage has been pushed and accepted abroad. Look at how crappy their overall standards of morality are.

Which means "look at how their overall standards of morality don't agree with mine," which is hardly surprising.

They're native populations are plummeting and their cultures are slowly being taken over by those who do not share their values, particularly the value of gay marriage.

Please provide support for this claim.

 

[Rev. Smith]

The current mainstream American culture is that a marriage consists of one male and one female. Redefining that as a male and male, or female and female relationship thus opens the door to other changes in the defintion of marriage: Polygamy (already being sued for), incestuous (already being seriously argued for), and bestial (already seriously proposed).

But who is proposing that we allow incest or bestiality? Are there more than say, 11 people, in the entire country who are in favor of either? (Polygamy, being biblical, I assume has the full support of all good conservative Christians)

 

[The Bellman]

But who is proposing that we allow incest or bestiality? Are there more than say, 11 people, in the entire country who are in favor of either? (Polygamy, being biblical, I assume has the full support of all good conservative Christians)

I previously asked Buzz Dixon to support his claims regarding incestuous, polygamous and bestial unions; he has failed to do so. Indeed, he's failed to address anything in that post.

 

[Clem is Me]

By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term. It doesn't matter if heterosexuals are already doing damage to the institution; that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere.

Without a doubt gays and lesbians may form long lasting stable loving relationships; those relationships are not marriages. Marriage is the bonding of a male and a female into a unique synthesis. You can't have steel without carbon and iron, you can't have marriage without a male and a female.

(Supposed examples to the contrary are often either deliberately distorted non-sexual relations, such as blood brotherhoods, or extremely rare incidents where a male publicly takes on the role and personna of a female to marry another male thus creating a faux male/female relationship, not a male/malke one.)

While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.

Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture. When marriage is devalued, families split up, children are raised without fathers, and very quickly crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse rates, illegitimacy and divorce rates begin rising, while the children receive poorer educations and are more emotionally vulnerable.

Adding gay marriage to this culture would only continue to devalue marriage as an institution. It would further reduce the impression that marriage is something bigger than the two people involved and by extension make it less important in the eyes of succeeding generations.

Look where gay marriage has been pushed and accepted abroad. Look at how crappy their overall standards of morality are. They're native populations are plummeting and their cultures are slowly being taken over by those who do not share their values, particularly the value of gay marriage.

As I've said before, if there were no other fronts in the cultural war, gay marriage would be a minor issue. But it's not the only leak in the canoe, so to speak. We've got lotsa problems that need attending to, and gay marriage is just a tiny little leak that we can close off quickly right now before it grows larger and not have to worry about again while we tend to other, more serious problems.

Now, you (rhetorical) wanna talk about tax breaks and property rights for couples and households that aren't conventional marriages, nooooooo problem. Well be happy to discuss that and come up with something that will benefit all unmarried couples, not just the gay ones.

"Specific". Perhaps I was vague. I meant specific as in direct cause and effect. When I drive a car I am more likely to kill someone than when I am walking. This can be demonstrated statistically. When I take alcohol and drive I become vastly more likely to kill someone. This can be demonstrated statistically. So,the threat to other drivers is that when I drink and drive I am statistically far more likely to make a dangerous situation vastly more dangerous. Thus we reduce a liberty for a sound and inarguable threat. Once again, Buzz, I want you to show me, cause and effect, how a gay marriage threatens my marriage or my family. Slippery slope arguments will not suffice. Norway will not suffice. Gay marriage is supposed to be a threat. Demonstrate that threat or admit that you can't. It's quite simple.