Your stance on gay marriage

[The Alma Mater]

I have been convinced that civil unions should be recognised by the government, with the de facto status of marriage, with the exception of adoption.

Why not marriage and adoption?

Well, think of the children ! Think of the horror of having two loving mommies or two loving daddies in a stable relationship!

No. Far better for them to stay in their third world country where they will have to fight to survive and be raped by the local Catholic priest when they reach the age of 8. Obviously.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I have been convinced that civil unions should be recognised by the government, with the de facto status of marriage, with the exception of adoption.

What's wrong with adoption?

Tradition...

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Why not marriage and adoption?

Well, think of the children ! Think of the horror of having two loving mommies or two loving daddies in a stable relationship!

No. Far better for them to stay in their third world country where they will have to fight to survive and be raped by the local Catholic priest when they reach the age of 8. Obviously.

^ This. The priests won't have any more chances when Peter the Roman comes.

[Arumdaum]

Well, think of the children ! Think of the horror of having two loving mommies or two loving daddies in a stable relationship!

No. Far better for them to stay in their third world country where they will have to fight to survive and be raped by the local Catholic priest when they reach the age of 8. Obviously.

^ This. The priests won't have any more chances when Peter the Roman comes.

Peter the Roman?

[The Alma Mater]

^ This. The priests won't have any more chances when Peter the Roman comes.

Peter the Roman?

The legendary Pope who will destroy Rome.

[Arajaka]

What's wrong with adoption?

Tradition...

That's not an argument. Human sacrifice was "tradition" in many societies around the world. Should we revive that on account of "tradition"?

Or better yet, why don't we just go back to pre-Christian days, when many societies around the world didn't give a fig about same-sex relationships (and some even had special roles for a "third gender"). Surely that's even more traditional than your claim of tradition, since it goes back farther?

[The Alma Mater]

Tradition...

Or better yet, why don't we just go back to pre-Christian days, when many societies around the world didn't give a fig about same-sex relationships (and some even had special roles for a "third gender").

You don't have to go back in time for that. Still plenty of societies where three or more genders are recognised

[Dusk_Kittens]

Peter the Roman?

The legendary Pope who will destroy Rome.

See the prophecy of Malachy. The majority opinion among those who believe in this is that Petrus Romanus will be the next Pope (i.e., the successor of Ratzinger).

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Or better yet, why don't we just go back to pre-Christian days, when many societies around the world didn't give a fig about same-sex relationships (and some even had special roles for a "third gender").

You don't have to go back in time for that. Still plenty of societies where three or more genders are recognised

Well, tradition has changed before, and stayed.

[Arajaka]

Or better yet, why don't we just go back to pre-Christian days, when many societies around the world didn't give a fig about same-sex relationships (and some even had special roles for a "third gender").

You don't have to go back in time for that. Still plenty of societies where three or more genders are recognised

True (Thailand comes to mind), but since Yerushalayim is arguing from tradition, I'm suggesting that a real conservative who supports really, really traditional values will go back even farther in time to the real roots of our civilization.

From that perspective, Yerushalayim and others who want to exclude LBGT people on the basis of Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality are a bunch of radicals with a johnny-come-lately progressive agenda that's destroying the moral fabric and millenia old traditions of our society. And I for one won't stand for it!

[Arajaka]

You don't have to go back in time for that. Still plenty of societies where three or more genders are recognised

Well, tradition has changed before, and stayed.

Right. So why can't it change now, allowing LGBT people basic human dignity and rights, and then stay?

You're not presenting an argument so much as you seem to be stating your preferences and saying 'tradition'.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Well, tradition has changed before, and stayed.

Right. So why can't it change now, allowing LGBT people basic human dignity and rights, and then stay?

You're not presenting an argument so much as you seem to be stating your preferences and saying 'tradition'.

Basic human dignity and rights are rather subjective, don't you think? I've never heard of a right to adopt children.

[Arajaka]

Right. So why can't it change now, allowing LGBT people basic human dignity and rights, and then stay?

You're not presenting an argument so much as you seem to be stating your preferences and saying 'tradition'.

Basic human dignity and rights are rather subjective, don't you think? I've never heard of a right to adopt children.

'Tradition' is also clearly rather subjective, since any given society will have quite a bit of 'tradition' to draw from - a great deal of which is contradictory. The line you are drawing for 'tradition' appears to go back a most a few centuries; why not go farther? Why emphasize those aspects of tradition and not others? You haven't even attempted to explain, let alone argue, these completely arbitrary choices.

And no, to answer your question, I don't find basic human dignity and rights to subjective. If you believe that, you should have no problem with me brutally torturing your loved ones - since any 'rights' they may have are completely subjective.

[The Alma Mater]

Right. So why can't it change now, allowing LGBT people basic human dignity and rights, and then stay?

You're not presenting an argument so much as you seem to be stating your preferences and saying 'tradition'.

Basic human dignity and rights are rather subjective, don't you think? I've never heard of a right to adopt children.

True that.

But, as I said, what is better for the children ? Living on the streets in a third world country, or in the care of a gay couple who have shown to be in a stable relationship and able to provide the kid with food, shelter, clothes and schooling ?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Basic human dignity and rights are rather subjective, don't you think? I've never heard of a right to adopt children.

'Tradition' is also clearly rather subjective, since any given society will have quite a bit of 'tradition' to draw from - a great deal of which is contradictory. The line you are drawing for 'tradition' appears to go back a most a few centuries; why not go farther? Why emphasize those aspects of tradition and not others? You haven't even attempted to explain, let alone argue, these completely arbitrary choices.

And no, to answer your question, I don't find basic human dignity and rights to subjective. If you believe that, you should have no problem with me brutally torturing your loved ones - since any 'rights' they may have are completely subjective.

Then let's go according to the given society.

I don't find it a matter of their rights as much as it is a matter of decency on your part.

[Arajaka]

Then let's go according to the given society.

Except that as I pointed out, there are competing traditions within any given society.

In American society you have Enlightenment radicalism, the belief that all people are "created equal" and should thus enjoy the same rights.

You also have some, mostly certain religious groups, arguing against that.

Which "tradition" do you go with? Both have equal claim as "tradition".

I don't find it a matter of their rights as much as it is a matter of decency on your part.

Okay. Then I find your lack of support for adoption for LGBT couples to be most un-decent.

[Dyakovo]

You can have any number of states, countries, groups, individuals, or whatever call it GAY MARRIAGE but the truth is that a catchy acronym for two people co-habitating... fucking, playing with sex toys with each other or trying to get some free gov't program payout because they have a perverted sense of sexual orientation, but in the eyes of God, it's wrong, and it isn't "Marriage".

If you think you can have kids by procreation by living and whatever with the same sex, well... go ahead, that's the best way to clean the gene pool of all those pervs.

Sure, some say they can adopt and take those kids out off of the streets and give them good loving homes, cool... whatever. 1 kid out of 7 billion isn't making a raindrops difference in the level of the ocean. It's all relative.

You do what you want and I'll do what I want and never the two shall meet.

Marriage is not a religious institution.

[Distruzio]

You can have any number of states, countries, groups, individuals, or whatever call it GAY MARRIAGE but the truth is that a catchy acronym for two people co-habitating... fucking, playing with sex toys with each other or trying to get some free gov't program payout because they have a perverted sense of sexual orientation, but in the eyes of God, it's wrong, and it isn't "Marriage".

If you think you can have kids by procreation by living and whatever with the same sex, well... go ahead, that's the best way to clean the gene pool of all those pervs.

Sure, some say they can adopt and take those kids out off of the streets and give them good loving homes, cool... whatever. 1 kid out of 7 billion isn't making a raindrops difference in the level of the ocean. It's all relative.

You do what you want and I'll do what I want and never the two shall meet.

Marriage is not a religious institution.

It is for some.

[Ceannairceach]

Marriage is not a religious institution.

It is for some.

No, they make the ceremony religious, but the overall institution of marriage is strictly governmental.

[Dyakovo]

Marriage is not a religious institution.

It is for some.

No, some people choose to attach a religious ceremony to a secular institution.

[Distruzio]

It is for some.

No, they make the ceremony religious, but the overall institution of marriage is strictly governmental.

You keep saying it. Surely the majority of Americans will agree with you eventually.

[Ceannairceach]

No, they make the ceremony religious, but the overall institution of marriage is strictly governmental.

You keep saying it. Surely the majority of Americans will agree with you eventually.

They don't have to agree for it to be true.

[New Rogernomics]

You should be able to marry whatever and whoever you like within reason, it's time for homophobes and furry haters to butt out.

[The Alma Mater]

No, they make the ceremony religious, but the overall institution of marriage is strictly governmental.

You keep saying it. Surely the majority of Americans will agree with you eventually.

The moment they request things like power of attorney, visiting rights for their comatose partner, automatic recognition of paternity of offsspring, or tax benefits they have acknowledged it is a legal contract. Churches after all have nothing whatsoever to do with those things.

[Eggy216]

You keep saying it. Surely the majority of Americans will agree with you eventually.

The moment they request things like power of attorney, visiting rights for their comatose partner, automatic recognition of paternity of offsspring, or tax benefits they have acknowledged it is a legal contract. Churches after all have nothing whatsoever to do with those things.