Drag him out and shoot him. I’ll swear out the warrant later.
Come on. It was a bad pun, I admit, but it wasn’t THAT bad.
Besides, I’m with y’all on this one. I wanna know what this “fabric of society” is and how gay marriage is gonna destroy it.
I think the fabric might change from a dowdy tweed blend into hot pink spandex with black racing stripes.
I dare not speak for Brutus, but my dad’s favorite argument is that all societies in which homosexuality has become commonplace and accepted have crumbled due to its lack of morals. Then he cites the Roman Empire.
I tell him I think that’s a stupid argument, and he asks me why. I don’t have anything with which to fire back other than, “It just sounds stupid.” Anyone willing to give me something good to throw back at him?
What in the blue fucking blazes are you talking about? There is no “tax benefit” for marriage. There is a tax credit for children, but you get that whether you’re married or not.
Your homework is to put together a list of “benefits” society awards a married couple (with documentation) and how those benefits are related to the raising of children. Bonus points for also demonstrating (again, with documentation) why the relationship is relevant. For example:
**Benefit ** One member of a married couple may authorize surgery on the other member in the case of incapacity.
Relation to RoCWorks to ensure to survival of both parents.
RelevanceLink to some study that shows that two-parent children have a functional advantage in life.
Your alternative homework assignment is to admit that you’re a fuckhead who is against gay marriage because you don’t like gay people.
Perhaps it will force Brutus to face his long-repressed desire to be fucked in the ass by a muscular, sweaty Bosnian weight lifter with a handlebar moustache during a late night tryst in the gym locker room. (I mean the weight lifter has a moustache, not that he’s going to fuck Brutus with the moustache. That’s in the sequel.)
I mean, I’m just throwing that out as a hypothetical. It seems about as likely as Brutus’s claims of the “fabric of society,” whatever the hell that is.
I guess, off the cuff, I would tell him that he needs to prove causality here and that this bold statement fails to do so. First, it sets as terms for the debate that homosexuality=immorality, so prove it. Second, it assumes that immorality was the primary cause for the fall of Rome. OK, cite please.
Not to point out the obvious here, but ALL societies crumble eventually, homos or no homos. You don’t see much of the Babylonian society around. I haven’t noticed the Scythians playing a big role in world affairs. You never hear any pithy quotes from the ambassador for the Austro-Hungarian Empire anymore. And how is the Iroquois Confederacy doing nowadays?
Damn, I’m hetero and that got me hot!
How about listing societies that didn’t condone homosexuality, and crumbled anyway? I believe the British Empire was pretty down on homosexuality, yet they’re not half the nation-state they used to be. The USSR persecuted gays, and look what happened to them. Most of the homophobia in Western cultures is based on passages from the Old Testament, but until halfway through the last century, there hadn’t been a Jewish nation in centuries.
Nothing last forever, all things move towards their end, what goes up must come down, etc. Societies rise and fall, and this generally has very little to do with where they put their cocks.
That’s pretty much been my response. All societies crumble, and ours will one day as well whether gays can marry or not. Then he mumbles something about how immoral societies crumble faster, and before I can ask “Cite?” he leaves to go do something else.
Incidentally, we were having this discussion the other night, and he brought out the “They want special rights” argument. I told him, “Actually, if gays are allowed to marry, wouldn’t that mean that you would have the right to marry a man if you so desired?” He just stared at me for a minute and said, “I don’t see it that way.”
:rolleyes:
Tell him it didn’t fall until the Christians took over.
I am so going to have to quote you on this.
Well, you might try this: while the fall of the Roman Empire may have been due to a “lack of morals” (surely an arguable point in itself), one’s sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of personal morals.
Speaking of Romans, Brutus’ claim that SSM would irreperably harm “the fabric of society” strikes me as one of the least logical assertions I’ve ever heard in this forum. The only way it even comes close to making sense is if one presumes that heteros will suddenly stop marrying en masse simply because homosexuals have the same right. Since I can’t believe that Brutus would seriously believe such an absurd notion, I have to write off his objection as simple bigotry.
I bet we can find other subgroups with less than stellar child-rearing records. Should we ban marriage for them also?
I’d be all for eliminating the tax “benefits” of marriage, said benefits being negative at the moment. But we’re not talking about that married people have certain rights in relation to each other, which have nothing to do with children. As for government, I’ve always had the impression that government was pro-marriage. Are you saying that it is better for people unable or unwilling to have children to live together without marriage?
And, while I’m surprised to be the first to say it in this thread, to protect the fabric of society, you’d be better off banning Britney and most of Hollywood first.
But, see, as long as the union has a penis and a vagina involved it automatically receives the blessing of God and is washed in the blood of the lamb, or some shit.
You want to know how same-sex marriage will alter the fabric of society? Check out this article to see where this is headed.
Yes, but why shouldn’t I be able to automatically inherit their property sans taxation, or automatically be empowered to make medical decisions for them?
The Roman Empire lasted 500 years (and the Roman Republic predates the Empire by about an additional 200 years). THAT’S “crumbling fast”?
The Roman Empire lasted longer than that in the East, and made several revivals in the West in the form of the so-called Holy Roman Empire. The fall of the Empire can be traced more to the fact that it never recovered, politically, from the move of the capital from Rome to Constantinople, which led to the split of the Empire, which led to the West rotting (what most Americans consider the Roman Empire) while the East did fairly well for a long time.