Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Albaron]

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against homosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against heterosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Of course it sounds ridiculous. Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true. My opinion is my own.

Evolution is a fact, not an opinion. The fact that your opinion is your own is also a fact, but your opinion itself is not a fact. Here's a third fact: Your opinion is of no value to anyone but you. And a fourth fact: Your opinion runs counter to existing US law and the US Constitution. On the basis of the last two facts, your opinion is meaningless in the context of a discussion of the law.

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

[Dyakovo]

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against homosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against heterosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Of course it sounds ridiculous. Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true. My opinion is my own.

Evolution is a fact, not an opinion. The fact that your opinion is your own is also a fact, but your opinion itself is not a fact. Here's a third fact: Your opinion is of no value to anyone but you. And a fourth fact: Your opinion runs counter to existing US law and the US Constitution. On the basis of the last two facts, your opinion is meaningless in the context of a discussion of the law.

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

How does it sound ridiculous?

[Muravyets]

Did you even read the rest of the argument?
And even if you don;t agree with the "stupid" people, you can't deny their existence or their opinions.

Oh, trust me, as an American voter, I am only too fucking, bitterly aware of how impossible it is to deny the existence of stupid people and their "opinions."

But not denying the existence of shit-for-brains morons and their babblings does not equate to letting them run things or have their way. Just like being aware that cockroaches have appeared under your refrigerator does not obligate you to let them take over your kitchen.

[The Ambrose Islands]

I'm not trying to do the Mods' job for them but, since they are taking notice of this thread (there were three of them a while ago), can we try to keep it civil?

[Shakadondan]

Nay Marriage is an religious institution as old as human history, if nations believe in the separation of church and state then this discussion is mute....gay activists have a better chance fighting for the right to civil unions.....and have it worded that way on the ballot.....people see the words "gay marriage" and they flip out....also its a matter of tradition

[Muravyets]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Rick Santorum -- is that you! Keep your freak-porn fantasies to yourself, okay?

[Albaron]

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against homosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against heterosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Of course it sounds ridiculous. Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true. My opinion is my own.

Evolution is a fact, not an opinion. The fact that your opinion is your own is also a fact, but your opinion itself is not a fact. Here's a third fact: Your opinion is of no value to anyone but you. And a fourth fact: Your opinion runs counter to existing US law and the US Constitution. On the basis of the last two facts, your opinion is meaningless in the context of a discussion of the law.

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

How does it sound ridiculous?

If you present it thusly: "We are descended from apes", to a person who has never heard of genetics, evolution, or of anything (i.e. an objective being, for example), it will.

[Dyakovo]

Nay Marriage is an religious institution as old as human history

Except its not "a religious institution"

[Flameswroth]

Disgusting and revolting!!!!!!!

yep, my words exactly

I use those words, too. Quite often, in fact. I use them every time I see an add for Applebee's restaurants that show pictures of that greasy slop they call "food."

Okay, that's it! You know, I can stand by and calmly read as these debates get railed on hour after hour. I can stand being told that I'm a bigot, because quite frankly I am, and not bat an eye. And I can handle page upon page of diatribe, for and against, spouted in an infinite cycle without truly covering any new ground...

But I'll be damned if I'm just gonna sit here and let you bad mouth Applebee's and its delicious food!

[Albaron]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Rick Santorum -- is that you! Keep your freak-porn fantasies to yourself, okay?

What?

[Czardas]

I'm not trying to do the Mods' job for them but, since they are taking notice of this thread (there were three of them a while ago), can we try to keep it civil?

Actually, we do appreciate it if users try to keep the peace amongst themselves rather than calling us in. Makes our job easier, and it is better if people behave themselves without having to see red names in the userlist first.

[Dyakovo]

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

How does it sound ridiculous?

If you present it thusly: "We are descended from apes", to a person who has never heard of genetics, evolution, or of anything (i.e. an objective being, for example), it will.

So when you present it incorrectly it sounds ridiculous, therefore it sounds ridiculous?

[Cecilia Penifader]

I thought evolution was a theory, not a fact, because a fact is an 'objective and verifiable observation' and a theory interprets disparate facts to form a cohesive explanation.

Evolution is the explanation and the fossil record is a fact. It's possible for there to be more than one scientific theory of the same facts. I happen to believe the evolution one is correct.

[Albaron]

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

How does it sound ridiculous?

If you present it thusly: "We are descended from apes", to a person who has never heard of genetics, evolution, or of anything (i.e. an objective being, for example), it will.

So when you present it incorrectly it sounds ridiculous, therefore it sounds ridiculous?

How is "We are descended from apes" incorrect. That is the gist of evolution. That we have evolved by the breeding of apes and eventually turned out human. Of course there are other factors, but am I not correct? This is off-topic, however.

[Dyakovo]

I thought evolution was a theory, not a fact, because a fact is an 'objective and verifiable observation' and a theory interprets disparate facts to form a cohesive explanation.

Evolution is the explanation and the fossil record is a fact. It's possible for there to be more than one scientific theory of the same facts. I happen to believe the evolution one is correct.

Evolution is a fact, the theory is evolution by natural selection.

[Ordo Mallus]

if a guy wants to marry a guy, let him, not going to effect society much. if they want a child they are going to have to go to another country that allows it cause that can mess up the child's state of mind :l

[Muravyets]

Nay for the usual reasons. I have nothing against homosexuals themselves. The fact that some are open, proud about it and demanding marriage is what freaks me out.

So, you have nothing against gays so long as, to all intents and purposes, they just don't exist around you? As long as they hide themselves, never do anything, and live in shame all the time? Wow, that actually sounds like you do have something against them. It sounds like you hate the sight, even the thought of them. It sounds like you're bigoted against them.

Your point, other than to criticize me, is?

I would have thought that was obvious. My point was to show that you either do not understand the words you use, or else you are dishonest, like most bigots. The reason that is important is to expose that reality that all anti-gay-marriage arguments are based on nothing more than hostility towards gays. It has nothing at all to do with effects on society or religious practice or any of that sort of thing, and everything to do with people just wanting to keep gays in an inferior position so they can piss on them more easily -- while denying that they are doing it.

[Goath]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Rick Santorum -- is that you! Keep your freak-porn fantasies to yourself, okay?

What?

A former US Senator named Rick Santorum used the same argument in his opposition to gay marriage before the voters of his state kicked him out of office.

I don't think you understand how offensive it is to consider gay marriage something similar to bestiality and that granting rights to gays will just lead, logically, to granting rights to the other. Gays aren't doing anything inappropriate or, perhaps more importantly, non-consensual.

Interracial marriages and gay marriages are between two consenting adult people- there are no reasons to prevent those unions.

On the other hand, when you're dealing with people or creatures without the legal ability to consent- dogs, horses, children, siblings- there is a rational legal reason to block the union. A horse can't consent. A child can't consent. Because of that, there is absolutely NO reason to believe those potential unions would be legalized "just because' gay marriage was.

[Farnhamia]

if a guy wants to marry a guy, let him, not going to effect society much. if they want a child they are going to have to go to another country that allows it cause that can mess up the child's state of mind :l

Ah ... no, it doesn't really. Not any more than being the child of a heterosexual couple where the man routinely beats his wife, or one of them is an alcoholic or a drug user. In fact, the children of homosexuals can be and are quite well-adjusted.

[Cecilia Penifader]

I thought evolution was a theory, not a fact, because a fact is an 'objective and verifiable observation' and a theory interprets disparate facts to form a cohesive explanation.

Evolution is the explanation and the fossil record is a fact. It's possible for there to be more than one scientific theory of the same facts. I happen to believe the evolution one is correct.

Evolution is a fact, the theory is evolution by natural selection.

In biological terms, yes, but in terms of the relationship between evolution and the human species, then no. Everyone here seems to mean natural selection, not simply genetic mutations.

[Goath]

if a guy wants to marry a guy, let him, not going to effect society much. if they want a child they are going to have to go to another country that allows it cause that can mess up the child's state of mind :l

Ah ... no, it doesn't really. Not any more than being the child of a heterosexual couple where the man routinely beats his wife, or one of them is an alcoholic or a drug user. In fact, the children of homosexuals can be and are quite well-adjusted.

yep. there is no evidence the children of gay couples are any more screwed up than children of non-gay couples.

[Ordo Mallus]

if a guy wants to marry a guy, let him, not going to effect society much. if they want a child they are going to have to go to another country that allows it cause that can mess up the child's state of mind :l

Ah ... no, it doesn't really. Not any more than being the child of a heterosexual couple where the man routinely beats his wife, or one of them is an alcoholic or a drug user. In fact, the children of homosexuals can be and are quite well-adjusted.

so can the child from the broken family. one might become a beater of women and the other a homo by age 6.

[Muravyets]

If no one cared, why would we all bother replying?

Leave if you don't have a leg to stand on. Just don't pretend thats not why you're leaving.

Oh, now, now. I do agree that he should perhaps leave for that reason, but he could just be leaving to go to work or dinner or something. He did say he was just leaving "for now."

[Dyakovo]

If no one cared, why would we all bother replying?

Leave if you don't have a leg to stand on. Just don't pretend thats not why you're leaving.

Oh, now, now. I do agree that he should perhaps leave for that reason, but he could just be leaving to go to work or dinner or something. He did say he was just leaving "for now."

Why do I have this feeling that when he comes back we'll see a swarm of brand new anti-choice nations?

[Farnhamia]

if a guy wants to marry a guy, let him, not going to effect society much. if they want a child they are going to have to go to another country that allows it cause that can mess up the child's state of mind :l

Ah ... no, it doesn't really. Not any more than being the child of a heterosexual couple where the man routinely beats his wife, or one of them is an alcoholic or a drug user. In fact, the children of homosexuals can be and are quite well-adjusted.

so can the child from the broken family. one might become a beater of women and the other a homo by age 6.

Oh, please. "A homo by age 6"? If you think homosexuals shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexual citizens, just say so, okay? Stop with the school-yard taunting.