How, exactly, will it change American society for the worse? Everyone on your side keeps saying that, but no one can provide any sort of example of what sort of horrible thing is supposed to happen if SSM is legalized.
I’ll wager that homophobes have killed more people that terrorists have.
Hey Brutus:
Being in the pit, I offer this to you one more time. FUCK YOU!!!
Take your fucking bigoted ass and shove a constitutional law book up it.
As said by hajario
If that final link in my OP is any consideration, I think they’re afraid of that bogeyman of bogeymen, CONVERSION.
Insert toaster joke here
Oh, don’t mind Brutus, just pouting about those new shoes. Poor dear didn’t even realize that they are just sooo last year! Run along, now, Brutus, dear. Play some of your Judy Garland CD’s and you’ll feel all better! Kiss kiss!
Aww comon everyone knows if we make SSM legal we’ll all be forced to be metro sexual or become outcast second class citizens in our own society.
Do you want to live in a world with that much hair gel??? I know I don’t.
Can I be a metro sexual and still buy my white socks by the bag at K-Mart? If I’m a metro sexual, and I meet a hot young chickita, she won’t call me “sir”? I gotta know more about this shit before I make a committment, you know? Tough enough being just a plain ol’ horn-dog, without complicating things.
If renouncing bigotry by implementing same-sex marriage will bring American society to its knees (not in a good way), wouldn’t that mean that that society would have to be entirely founded on bigotry?
That seems like an extremely anti-American position to hold.
He can’t. He hasn’t got a clue. Why he’s so vehemently against gay marriage is anybody’s guess. Mine is that he’s just plain dumb.
What is your reasoning behind this statement (particularly the “not for the better” part)?
It is quite some time since I saw Brutus enjoin a debate in earnest good faith. These days he simply tends to drive by, empty his nappy and leave.
Still, I too would like to hear his reasoning.
Me too, if he had any. Since he doesn’t, I prefer his current mode of operation.
Oh, he’s not just plain dumb. He’s dumb and mean.
Damn. I just spit my VitaminWater all over my monitor.
Well, it’s clear, really. There will ensue mass “confusion” about what marriage means. The less mentally agile amongst us may well end up trying to drive random strangers home, under the illusion that they are our spouses. Andrew Sacks’ book will no longer have a humourous title. Suddenly unable to comprehend the meaning of their wedding vows, our demand for renewal services will take on furious proportions, and speech writers capable of telling the difference between love and, say, hamburgers or ocelots will be hugely popular. The resulting downward pressure on the ocelot population, combined with the fall in McDonalds profits will undoubtedly cause the end of society as we know it, as feral buzzards tear apart the very fabric of our parkas and the SUV lays down with the Honda hybrid thingie.
Or something.
The sad thing is, even though there is no good reason to be against gay marriage, 50% of the people you meet are against it.
- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. As a society, we give that institution special privileges so that they may better raise children. Nothing else. We don’t give them benefits so that they can better show their undying love for one and other, we want to give that ‘family unit’ a bit of a break, to better raise the next generation of to-be married men and women. Circular thinking, but fundamental to the survival of any society.
In the interests of fairness, I wouldn’t be opposed to taking away the ‘benefits’ of legal marriage to couples, to be reinstated upon the birth of children. That would have the added bonus of either saving the gov’t some money, or allowing those benefits to be more generous.
- Judicial activism sucks. Sure, you are all grins and happiness that this particular (Mass. decision) ruling is in favor of something you support. When a judge passes down a ruling that radically changes something that you find objectionable, and you are faced with little, if any, recourse, I will try not to give you a ‘I told you so’ grin.
If it is a worthy and just cause, it can and should be put to the people through our regular channels. Vote for politicians that reflect your views. Put referendums and whatnot on the ballot. Trying to sneak it in through judicial fiat just pisses off those sitting on the fence, and will more than likely hurt your cause in the longterm.
-
Heterosexual marriage is an ancient institution in the Western world. And while some minutiae may have changed over the millenia, the base institution, that of one man and one woman, remains unchanged. (Old school Mormons excepted!) Without any good arguments put forth by gay people as to why the state should deem fit to grant them the child-rearing benefits of straight couples, I do not see a reason to change. The very crux of ‘conservatism’: Don’t change without a damned good reason to do so.
-
Once I see the majority of arguments are of the ‘You are a bigot, blah blah blah’, or ‘Homophobe!, blah blah blah’ variety, I recognize that there isn’t really a good reason for changing marriage.
Arbitrarily.
Infertile couples?
This is about your objections to gay marriage itself, not red herrings about the mechanism of legalising it.
Classic argument ad antiquitatem fallacy.
I do not even understand this as “reasoning” per se.
And you must still furnish some support for your belief that “society will be changed forthe worse”.
Well, you say you’re not a bigot, so you must support full marriage rights for gay couples who are raising children, correct?
You heard it here, folks: Brutus supports same-sex marriage as long as the gay spouses function as parents. That’s a very progressive attitude for you to hold, Brutus. I’m impressed.