|
The Other Election Day Story: Gay Marriage Bans (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
no, not God or Tradition.
the idea of family: a man and a woman, marriage, conception of a child (sperm and egg meet - try getting that to happen with two gay guys), birth, family unity / cohesion, and in the end, the family is the driving force of the society. |
If that's the case, it follows that divorces are devastating to a society, correct? And if that's true, what is the demographics of the highest divorce rates in our country?
I'll give you a hint, it's not in the North.
| quote: | | as it stands, we have sooo many marriages end in divorces, and therefore the idea of the family between a man and a woman should be supported and encouraged. |
This logically follows that we should therefore have laws not just to ban gay marriages, as you believe, but to ban divorces too.
So fess up, are you an advocate for such a plan or not?
And considering Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate per capita of any state, and it is currently allowing gay marriages, I think we can throw out your implied premise that gay marriages are a detriment to the family.
| quote: | oh the other hand, i have a gay friend. i've been to parties (with company of my girlfriend :D) where most of the people have been gay males. i have not once heard any of them talking about their rights to get married, and adopt children. what i do hear is nothing but drama, worse than any drama from any straight women i've heard.
this drama had to do with following topics:
who slept with who
when they slept with them
oh, he played me - he just wanted a one night stand
oh he's a housewife
sooo much gossip, and most of it revolving around ing.
this is my perception, and perception is reality.
>JM< |
With all due respect, your perception is about as bigoted and small-minded as they come. You honestly believe that this short-sighted perception, based upon a freakin' gay party of all things, is the common consensus of the actual homosexual mentality?
I'd ask you if you are really serious, but I think that's a rhetorical question. You are serious, and that honestly scares the crap out of me.
I could offer you a complete opposite scenario of two people sitting in neighboring cubicles next to me here in Kansas City, both are gay (not necessarily "openly gay", mind you). One is, in fact, my supervisor. Both have been in committed relationships for at least 5 years, both are extremely successful, well-educated, well-spoken (hey, even without that darn gay "lisp", ain't it shocking?), and I consider both close friends. My wife and I have had lunch and dinner with both of them on a handful of occasions, and one in particular you might even associate it with your "gay party" scenario. It was my supervisor's condo in downtown Kansas City with about 20 of his friends. And gosh, strangely, I didn't hear 1 sexually promiscuous conversation anywhere!
Strange that. 20 gay folks, 0 stories of "who ed whom".
And to top off that lovely night, not 1 gay guy touched me in an uncomfortable manner! Wierd, huh?
I think you need to understand the gay community a bit more before you exhibit your perceptions to all. Of course there's a bit of promiscuity among the homosexual community, but I'm more than game to make a comparison in this avenue between homosexuals vs. heterosexuals ing around. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
no, not God or Tradition.
the idea of family: a man and a woman, marriage, conception of a child (sperm and egg meet - try getting that to happen with two gay guys), birth, family unity / cohesion, and in the end, the family is the driving force of the society.
as it stands, we have sooo many marriages end in divorces, and therefore the idea of the family between a man and a woman should be supported and encouraged.
oh the other hand, i have a gay friend. i've been to parties (with company of my girlfriend :D) where most of the people have been gay males. i have not once heard any of them talking about their rights to get married, and adopt children. what i do hear is nothing but drama, worse than any drama from any straight women i've heard.
this drama had to do with following topics:
who slept with who
when they slept with them
oh, he played me - he just wanted a one night stand
oh he's a housewife
sooo much gossip, and most of it revolving around ing.
this is my perception, and perception is reality.
>JM< |
Like with all stereotypes, there are some people, in certain cases maybe it is the majority of people in that category fit that stereotype, but it is never the case for all. That's been my point, a lot of gay people don't want to get married, but there are some people who do and why should they be denied that right to have a civil (not religious) marriage? More importantly why is this such an enormous and important victory for the 11 states that passed bans? This country is made up of people from every single culture, relgion, race, etc. so how can one perspective be deemed the rule for all Americans? In addition there are many different sects of Christianity, so which one exactly are we legislating? Are we supposed to be a Lutheran, Evangelcal, Catholic or Baptist country? There are differences in Christianity in how the Bible is interpreted. |
|
|
| JM |
i've tried engaging in many conversations with them in regards to gay rights... and they always steer into politics, and not reasons why they believe what they do.
and as far as my insecurity goes, do you think if i was homophobic i'd go hang out in an environment with many other gay guys?
and my friend is also my gf's friend, hence we're both at the party.
there's a man and a woman on planet earth for a reason. people wouldnt be here today if a man and a man were able to breed. and if this was meant to be, do you not think that the human breed would adapt over time so that a man can impregnate another man, and have a man give birth to a child, so that the human society can continue evolving?
maybe give it another 10,000 years and humans may evolve, and maybe now is the start of that evolution, but as it stands, a man and a man cannot conceive a child, and therefore do not add any benefit to the human race in terms of evolution to continue our society.
think what you wanna think, say what you wanna say, but dont ask questions in form of "putting words in my mouth". what i say is what you get, and don't make any assumptions otherwise.
i probably wont discuss this anymore - i've most heard most if not all the arguments before, and i respect them. i dont care to hear or read the same things again and again though...
>JM<
ps. and as i said, perception is reality. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
there's a man and a woman on planet earth for a reason. people wouldnt be here today if a man and a man were able to breed. and if this was meant to be, do you not think that the human breed would adapt over time so that a man can impregnate another man, and have a man give birth to a child, so that the human society can continue evolving? |
You just moved into my realm. All life species breed. That does not necessitate the reality of homosexuality among species. Are you aware that humans are NOT the only animals to exhibit homosexual behavior? What is your insight to that?
| quote: | | maybe give it another 10,000 years and humans may evolve, and maybe now is the start of that evolution, but as it stands, a man and a man cannot conceive a child, and therefore do not add any benefit to the human race in terms of evolution to continue our society. |
There may or may not have been a mutation to that effect in the past, but there has been absolutely no naturally selected pressure for this to be the case for homo sapiens, as is with a great many species.
There are exceptions, however, where species have evolved from one sex to another for a means of reproduction.
| quote: | | think what you wanna think, say what you wanna say, but dont ask questions in form of "putting words in my mouth". what i say is what you get, and don't make any assumptions otherwise. |
You may be talking to ResonantDrag instead of me here, but I hope you do not feel the same about me. I have only been trying to logically follow your arguments.
| quote: | | i probably wont discuss this anymore - i've most heard most if not all the arguments before, and i respect them. i dont care to hear or read the same things again and again though... |
That much is certain.
| quote: | >JM<
ps. and as i said, perception is reality. |
Certainly seems to be the case for your version of reality at least. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | | a man and a man cannot conceive a child, and therefore do not add any benefit to the human race in terms of evolution to continue our society. |
You don't have to respond to what I'm about to post, although it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Imagine (theoretically) that the woman that you fall in love with was born with a genetic condition or suffered a bacterial infection that has rendered her unable to reproduce. Is it right to believe that a civil / religious union between these two people is wrong because they 'do not benefit the human race in terms of evolution'? |
|
|
| Ek0nomik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Piazza
Marriage is a religious cermony not a civil cermony. |
To you it's a religious ceremony, but to others it may not. I personally believe in the science behind human existence, evolution. To me marriage is the joining of two people who love each other, the joining of income, the joining to start a life together.
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
Is it right to believe that a civil / religious union between these two people is wrong because they 'do not benefit the human race in terms of evolution? |
Well said. |
|
|
| State of Matter |
Married or unmarried, they're not going to add to evolution either way, so WTF difference does it make if they're married or not?
In the end its a group of people forcing their views on other people when the issue doesn't affect them. Ever consider that somebody's concept of tradition (your example of family IS based on the traditional definition) might be different than yours?
For me, it's just like, why do you care what OTHER people are doing with their lives? And I've said this maybe 3 or 4 times on these boards and not one conservative has been able to respond, so please let me hear it. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| Actually i just got to thinking that if the ultimate goal is reproduction and gays and lesbians are wrong because they can't do that, then what would be so important about marriage? Wouldn't that just mean there should be outright promiscuity for the sake of rapidly reproducing? Who Hoo! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Actually i just got to thinking that if the ultimate goal is reproduction and gays and lesbians are wrong because they can't do that, then what would be so important about marriage? Wouldn't that just mean there should be outright promiscuity for the sake of rapidly reproducing? Who Hoo! |
This is where the theory of monagomy and the evolution of man and woman tends to fall flat on its face. Indeed, our definition of marriage has had a historical change itself, and one can trace back to the days where even in our own society polygamy was allowed.
But on a biological and zoological scale, the idea of monogamy is most certainly the exception and not the rule. |
|
|
| UWM |
"Did you know that wolves are monogomous, and are known to mate for life?"
Ace Ventura,
Pet Detective |
|
|
| icyhandofcrap |
Churches in the following post refer to any place of worship that performs marraige ceremonies.
As I said before, why can't we just allow homosexuals to be civilly married (or at least have civil unions), and let the individual churches decide whether they should perform religious ceremonies.
We can have separation of church and state, and religious freedom, no one will be butting into anyone's business, and hopefully anti-gay marraige churches (or religious places) / religions can be comforted by the fact that they personally are disallowing gay marraiges. Places of worship don't have to butt into other places of worships business either.
There are a number of religions / places of worship that do allow gay marraiges, so it is not like all religions are against it. We would be repressing some religions from practicing their beliefs if we banned gay marraiges, no?
And if you say it detracts from the "real" thing, I suggest not letting other peoples affairs bother you so much. :)
Quoth random people:
"Personally I could care less if you married your cat, or had twenty wives/husbands. As long as everyone is cool with it that's all that matters.
Marriage at it's legal bare bones is nothing more than a contract between two individuals concerning property rights, powers of attorney, and child custody. "
Or alternatively, civil unions could be given EXACTLY the same rights as a marraige, and I would be "Old Kinderhook" (Sorry, current US History AP student :D) with that.
The government can't FORCE churches to marry people, and neither should it be able to PROHIBIT churches from doing so. |
|
|
| icyhandofcrap |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
"Did you know that wolves are monogomous, and are known to mate for life?"
Ace Ventura,
Pet Detective |
I'll find you some homosexual wolves, yes I will! :D
I gave up and found penguins instead, sorry. :( |
|
|
|
|
