• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

MindzEye said:
again, I'm not arguing against the institution of marriage, or it's place in our evolution as a society, simply that there is a valid argument for excluding homosexuals from being within the definition. That's all I'm arguing against.
Click to expand...

The inclusion of gays and lesbians will likely strengthen the instituion.
 
MindzEye said:
The reason slavery was abolished was because it was morally wrong to withhold the equality rights of another human being ("Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil"...to quote Lincoln). The reason gay marriage will be made law is that it is morally wrong to withhold the equality rights of another human being.

There are no criteria of the traditional marriage that gays cannot perform in this day and age. None, zero.
Click to expand...

slavery was abolished not to ensure EQUALITY rights. it was abolished because it was IMMORAL for a human being to have arbitrary power of life and death over another human being. i suspect that a huge majority of whites pushing for abolition didn't actually see blacks as being fully "equal" to them. and even if we agree that it was to ensure EQUALITY- it is far too big a stretch to equate slavery to gay marriage. far too big a stretch. even "despicable monsters" like me have already accepted that "the gays" already have the right to do what other couples do- have relationships, love each other, live together, grow old together, and support each other.

and finally, the most important criteria of traditional marriage- producing children together- is physiologically IMPOSSIBLE for gay couples. two men or two women cannot exchange their DNA to produce offspring. they CANNOT satisfy the central, most essential, most sociologically crucial component of traditional marriage- producing children.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
and finally, the most important criteria of traditional marriage- producing children together- is physiologically IMPOSSIBLE for gay couples. two men or two women cannot exchange their DNA to produce offspring. they CANNOT satisfy the central, most essential, most sociologically crucial component of traditional marriage- producing children.
Click to expand...

Paging kb. Paging kb.

JaysCyYoung said:
I'm going to ask for (a fifth) time: if the only purpose of marriage is for procreation, and you would thereby exclude gays from marriage on that sole basis, would you also exclude the infertile and impotent from having marriages? They would be unable to produce children.
Click to expand...

Request an answer time number six.
 
Well yeah, the biggest reason women became accepted into the workplace en masse was because governments wanted to be able to tax two incomes rather than one.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Paging kb. Paging kb.



Request an answer time number six.
Click to expand...

marriage is between a man an a woman. we have many new avenues available today for couples who have trouble having children to combine their DNA and share offspring. people who originally marry not wanting children can and do often change their minds and ultimately have children. so no, i don't believe we should be excluding childless couples from marriage.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
marriage is between a man an a woman. we have many new avenues available today for couples who have trouble having children to combine their DNA and share offspring. people who originally marry not wanting children can and do often change their minds and ultimately have children. so no, i don't believe we should be excluding childless couples from marriage.
Click to expand...

But is it not God's will for them to be unable to conceive children? Isn't it immoral and going against morality for them to play God by using science to get themselves pregnant?
 
I can't believe anyone's actually concerned at all about the ability of humans to continue to produce offspring. Absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Octomom, 19 Kids and Counting, Jon and Kate Plus 8.

Oh, but don't allow gay marriage. That'll surely put the survival of the species in jeopardy.
 
and finally, the most important criteria of traditional marriage- producing children together- is physiologically IMPOSSIBLE for gay couples. two men or two women cannot exchange their DNA to produce offspring. they CANNOT satisfy the central, most essential, most sociologically crucial component of traditional marriage- producing children.
Click to expand...

Surrogate mothers with the DNA of one of the fathers.....lesbian couples can obviously do invitro.

Homosexual couples can produce, and raise children.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
slavery was abolished not to ensure EQUALITY rights.
Click to expand...

My purpose is to be, in my action, just and constitutional; and yet practical, in performing the important duty, with which I am charged, of maintaining the unity, and the free principles of our common country.
Click to expand...


I could quote the free principles he's referring to, but I don't think it's necessary. As well, I could mention who is being quoted...again, probably not necessary given the context.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
marriage is between a man an a woman. we have many new avenues available today for couples who have trouble having children to combine their DNA and share offspring. people who originally marry not wanting children can and do often change their minds and ultimately have children. so no, i don't believe we should be excluding childless couples from marriage.
Click to expand...

What about allowing the marriage of two people, both with genetic conditions, in a situation where reproduction would put any offspring at serious risk of death?
 
msun30 said:
yes. for thousands of years homosexuality was looked down upon, criminalized, stigmatized -- you name it.

over the past 50 years or so it has incrementally been more accepted across society. people became allowed to be openly gay. buggery laws were abolished. the last legal impediment to full inclusion is the right to marry.

so, there you have it -- incremental change.
Click to expand...

This.

For anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice and will become more common with acceptance just has to think about this. For thousands of years people did everything they could to suppress it and yet it remained through the years. Even when there was a fear of death there were still gay people. Nothing has changed except it's becoming more accepted. There is no risk of more gay people, just the people who are gay will be happier and won't feel the need to hide it or kill themselves because they cannot "be themselves."

Homosexuality is not contagious and it's not a choice. You are either gay or you are not. There's no risk of having more gay people.
 
Howard Stern has made many great statements regarding homosexuality and gay marriage over the years. Here's one good one from last year.

[video=youtube;zdo8mUdH0eQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdo8mUdH0eQ[/video]

and in response to Obama supporting gay marriage.

[video=youtube;dv8pmaOQ3i8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv8pmaOQ3i8[/video]
 
Leafovic said:
Seriously..these are such oudated thought. Worried about the survival of the species? lmao
Click to expand...

That's standard operating procedure for millennialists. Everything is an existentialist threat to civilization. If it wasn't Arabs and gays, it would probably be Mexican narco-terrorists and common-law heteros. They are destroying the planet.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
marriage is between a man an a woman.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, now in Canada marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex.

Its too late. The sanctity of your marriage has been destroyed. You may as well get a divorce, turn gay and join the anarchy.
 
Last edited:
By "traditional marriage" i assume we're all referring to "the legal unionof one man of a certain class and color to one virgin woman of the same class and colour, subject to parental approval and negotiation on proper dowry payment, any violation of which by that woman would leave hr desttitute and outcast from society".

Or are we referring to "male of tribe A clubs and drags away female of tribe B, impregnates her, which union is then consecrated by a mutual exchange of blood under the shaman's guidance" ?

I always forget which version of "traditional marriage" was the perfect one that finally ensured the survival of our species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top