TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
One example, gay rights.. do you think that most Republican candidates really believe that letting gays and lesbiens marry will factually "ruin" marriage?
The religious-right movement, they're pretty extreme in my views.
Gay Marriage and Lifestyle Choice Thread.
- Thread starter TheDude
- Start date
One example, gay rights.. do you think that most Republican candidates really believe that letting gays and lesbiens marry will factually "ruin" marriage?
The religious-right movement, they're pretty extreme in my views.
Terrible example. You've picked an issue that is overwhelmingly supported by the public. So the single issue you have chosen to use to demonstrate the that Republicans are out of the mainstream that happens to be repeatedly and broadly supported by the mainstream. This has been demonstrated by countless polls and ballot initiatives.
Second,the argument isn't that "it'll ruin marriage." But since this isn't a gay marriage thread, I'm sure we've done those before, there's no point in getting side tracked.
The "extreme" example on this issue is embrace by the DEMOCRATS on this issue, not the Republicans, consistent with my point. I tend to think the group that wants to radically redefine one of the building blocks of our society and a tradition that has existed for centuries, possibly millenia, are the extremist and radicals. Not those preserving a tradition.
While this thread isn't about gay marriage, it should be pointed out that in other countries that have allowed gay marriage, illegitimacy rates have gone through the roof!! So, in a sense, marriage has lost all meaning, or been "ruined".
U also need to realize, the main reasons for the push for gay marriage are not for any "equal rights" (that is the disengenuous reason they give).
Here are a few article I just googled on this:
http://www.slate.com/id/3642/entry/23841/
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/livestro200406290924.asp
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.shtml
I dunno - I personally dont care if gays want to marry. Let them I say.
My thinking, is that it will ADD to the 'family' values. Im not sure I can explain this right, but ill try.
Right now, gay couples have no legitimacy legally. Its not like they'll turn straight if we dont give them that, they'll still be gay. But they'll be gay with no ability for commitment. Conversely, I dont see straight people turning gay just because they can marry gay -
Thats that part I dont understand. Thats what makes no sense to me. Why would someone fight a gay couple's attempts to have the commitment and permanancy of marriage? How does that hurt the traditional family? WOuldnt we want to encourage people to build lives together? Build homes, businesses, etc?
Want to know what has hurt family values? All these laws that make it easy to divorce. All these laws that make it easy NOT to get married. Things like no fault divorce, and child support and what not have made it easy to divorce, not just as far as the mechanics, but also long term.
A woman isnt happy, she knows she can divorce, get half of the family assets, get child support, and move on. (of course its not limited to women - I only said women because its usually them that take that course)
We've also made it too easy for an unmarried woman to have children and not have to accept the responsibility.
In most cases, when girl gets pregnant, the man has virtually no say as to what happens next. She decides if she keeps the baby, gives it away or has an abortion. The man has virtually no rights at this point. BUT - he does get the right to pay child support for 18 years if she chooses to keep the child. Why would she get married? Fact is, there are women out there drawing child support from more then one father - or drawing child support while she's married to (or living with) someone else. I know we have to take care of the child, but at the same time, its a little too easy to not get married when a single girl gets pregnant.
I bunched a few issues in there, I know. But I feel as though we arent doing enough to reward the people who stay married, who stay a family, and making it too easy for them to just cut and run.
My thinking, is that it will ADD to the 'family' values. Im not sure I can explain this right, but ill try.
Right now, gay couples have no legitimacy legally. Its not like they'll turn straight if we dont give them that, they'll still be gay. But they'll be gay with no ability for commitment. Conversely, I dont see straight people turning gay just because they can marry gay -
Thats that part I dont understand. Thats what makes no sense to me. Why would someone fight a gay couple's attempts to have the commitment and permanancy of marriage? How does that hurt the traditional family? WOuldnt we want to encourage people to build lives together? Build homes, businesses, etc?
Want to know what has hurt family values? All these laws that make it easy to divorce. All these laws that make it easy NOT to get married. Things like no fault divorce, and child support and what not have made it easy to divorce, not just as far as the mechanics, but also long term.
A woman isnt happy, she knows she can divorce, get half of the family assets, get child support, and move on. (of course its not limited to women - I only said women because its usually them that take that course)
We've also made it too easy for an unmarried woman to have children and not have to accept the responsibility.
In most cases, when girl gets pregnant, the man has virtually no say as to what happens next. She decides if she keeps the baby, gives it away or has an abortion. The man has virtually no rights at this point. BUT - he does get the right to pay child support for 18 years if she chooses to keep the child. Why would she get married? Fact is, there are women out there drawing child support from more then one father - or drawing child support while she's married to (or living with) someone else. I know we have to take care of the child, but at the same time, its a little too easy to not get married when a single girl gets pregnant.
I bunched a few issues in there, I know. But I feel as though we arent doing enough to reward the people who stay married, who stay a family, and making it too easy for them to just cut and run.
I understand the whole 'not tonight dear' thing pretty well.
Thats because every time she says yes, you get another kid. She just wants to be able to see her feet for awhile
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
"Overwhelmingly supported by the public", that’s a laugh, maybe the public in Red states. What happened when S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom let gay marriages proceed, who stepped in and reversed them? It wasn't the Democrats/Liberals.
Sorry, but our own President has basically said 'It [gay marriages] will ruin the sanctity of marriage'.
Dude, please don't feed me the "building blocks of our society and a tradition" nonsense, if anything will ruin marriage, it is the rampant divorce rates and the ease of divorce (as noted by Joey). Like our society will crumble if 'John and Harry' or 'Joan & Melissa' are allowed to enter a legal binding contract.
The divorce rate is over 50%.... Dont tell me thats because of gay people. THAT is what is really a threat to the American family.
Joey, u seem to be looking at marriage only from the prospective of what is "fair" for the two people with rings on their fingers (traditionally the husband and wife roles). Conservatives look at it from (among other things) what is best for the kids. Those three articles at the very least offer a different perspective from what u get with the media and offer a real argument against gay marriage (again, different from what the mainstream media presents as the "anti-gay marriage" argument. If I were u, I would read those article to get a better understanding of where the "other side" is coming from on this one. At the very least, then u will know the argument in depth that u need to be able to counter to support your point of view. If u just keep goin with the "it's fair" route, u r not gonna make any headway with those opposed to gay marriage because u r not addressing their concerns.
Consider more then just divorce rates; Illigitimacy rates, divorce rates among lesbians/gays v. heterosexuals (usually in other countries that allow gay marriage), social precedent of gay marriage (again, found in contries that have allowed gay marriage, what has followed after gay marriage has been established), ect. Also, has being homosexual been PROVEN no to be a lifestyle choice.
Just my $0.02
Consider more then just divorce rates; Illigitimacy rates, divorce rates among lesbians/gays v. heterosexuals (usually in other countries that allow gay marriage), social precedent of gay marriage (again, found in contries that have allowed gay marriage, what has followed after gay marriage has been established), ect. Also, has being homosexual been PROVEN no to be a lifestyle choice.
Just my $0.02
The last election, tends to suggest "overwelming support by the public"! In every initiative on the ballot having to do with gay marriage, the public in every one of those areas OVERWELMINGLY voted against gay marriage. Before u can start telling others what will and won't destroy marriage, u need to be able to answer a very simple question: What is the purpose of the institution of marriage (in the traditional heterosexual sense)?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
"Best for the kids" is a B.S. argument... Male/Male couples cannot procreate, though Female/Female couples can through sperm banks/3rd party. But, it's irrelevant though as they can still have children while being an un-married couple. In fact, in those cases, being married would only benefit the "kids" if that is what the concern is really over, the kids.
I do not clearly understand your second paragraph....
Has being homosexual been proven to be a lifestyle choice? Fact is, most data at hand support that homosexuality is genetic and not a "learned" behavior. Call it abnormal if you will though.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
It legally binds two people to each other.... say what you will; marriage in of itself has no magical or paranormal ability to do anything. Do you love your wife simply because you said "I do" and a certificate was handed out? Or, do you love her because you simply love her?
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
When you guys go into a big city, and find an empty parking stall, make sure you thank the gay people for not procreating and adding yet another human to this planet... a human that could have very well taken up that free parking stall. :lol:
I didn't ask for a definition of marriage, what is the PURPOSE of marriage? It is a simple question with a simple answer. Nothing "magical" or "paranormal" about it (and I never implied anything like that).
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Is it a genetic defect? A mutation?
Most data does not support the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Most data reported in the mainstream media supports the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
And monstermark pointed out, even if it is genetic, is it a genetic defect (in a sense, it has to be)? If it is genetic, then it flies in the face of Darwinism, too.
And monstermark pointed out, even if it is genetic, is it a genetic defect (in a sense, it has to be)? If it is genetic, then it flies in the face of Darwinism, too.
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
If it is a genetic defect, do we oust those people with genetic defects? Do we not want them as productive NON-PROCREATING members of society?
Where do we draw the "rights" line of humans with genetic defects?
Where do we draw the "rights" line of humans with genetic defects?
I dont know that it would be genetic per se.
But, can we control what we find arousing?
Let me ask you this... And I hate to be crude. How many of you could get it up for a 400lb woman? But - some men like that.
We all have different tastes. Some of us like a womain with large breasts, some like small. Some like skinny girls, some with a little meat on them. Some like blondes and find nothing attractive about a brunette.
As I see it, gay is just another variant. Can you just stop liking women with large breasts? Nope. I dont believe a gay man or lesbian woman can just stop enjoying what they enjoy.
But, there is a certian "range" if u will that is considered "norm". Certianly someone attracted to a 5 year old kid, or a goat isn't considered normal by society. But, it could be argued by the standard u just stated that it is "just another variant". I personally have a number of gay, lez and bi friends. All but one of them have had some sort of sexual abuse in the past that they have informed me about. The last one is a question mark in that area. This may mean something, it may not, just my own personal observation. Of the bisexuals I know, all are basically just nymphos, should that be considered "normal" or "another variant"? Many homosexuals I have know (not all, or even most) are that way baltantly due to a choice. These r the "flamers"; the ones who try to shove their lifestyle choice at you and force you to accept them. These people (in my experience) have nothing else that defines them as an "individual" besides being gay. I guess u could call these people "gay posers". The point is, for these people, and by extension logically for a portion of the gay community, being gay IS a lifestyle choice. Also, "gay male relationships" are practially an oxymoron. Most gay men, are just like hetero men in that they have a natural biological tendency towards promiscuity (spread the seed). Long term lesbian couples tend to be much more common then gay ones (one of my closest friends is a lesbian in a 4+ year relationship). This is (IMO) because women tend to be the ones to want to settle down with one person and more prone to monogamy. This feeds into what the purpose of marriage is: to "provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization"; basically the purpose of marriage is to provide a structure for the procreation and raising of children. It is about much more then "equal rights" for a minority that may or may not be a minority due to a lifestyle choice. In fact, for the gay community to look at it only that way is extremely selfish, and tends to support the idea of not allowing gay adoption (which is another can of worms).
This thread stopped being about Obama a long time ago...
Might I suggest one of the admins pick a point in this thread to cut the remaining posts, and paste them into a new thread...
This thread stopped being about Obama a long time ago...
Might I suggest one of the admins pick a point in this thread to cut the remaining posts, and paste them into a new thread...
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Defect is somewhat of a strong word, but yes. Considering that people with this "defeat" generally do breed and propagate the species.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Really? Tell me then, what turns people gay if everyone is factually born heterosexual? Having sex with the same sex is a choice, that isn't the argument, but is sexual attraction a choice? Do you willfully choose to find women sexually attractive?
How does a genetic defect fly in the face of Darwin?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Exactly, choosing who you have sex with is a choice; not who you find sexually arrousing.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Your anecdotal evidence is just that... for every "gay because of child abuse/trauma" there’s a gay person who wasn't abused and a straight person who was abused. For every "flamer" there’s a gay man who fit's every "straight man" stereotype save who he has sex with. For every promiscuous gay man, there's a man/man couple going on 25+ years of committed relationship, for every long-term lesbian couple, there's a promiscuous "dyke" sleeping around etc. etc. etc.
Anyhow, do you choose to find women sexually attractive? Just answer me that and the Obama is 'doo-doo' can continue.
Then why do the 'experts' say pedofiles (sp?) have a sickness and have to be locked up in nuthouses for treatment?
Im not saying being gay is a sickness - but you can see the parallel