However, there are a few points here that I question:
So far as I’m aware, this is untrue.
If my wife were accused of a federal crime, I could be forced to testify against her. Nor is the state law universal: many states do not permit the spousal privilege. Finally, even in states that do, it[s typically limited to confidential communications between spouses; it’s not a blanket prohibition against a spouse testifying.
Cite? I’m unaware of any locality in the country with this rule.
Cite? I don’t deny it sometimes happens, but “almost always?”
See? We measure our values differently. You value your time on Earth. WE value our time after our life on Earth. You believe that DIRECTLY causing someone is all that matters.We believe that INDIRECT causes of harm are JUST as bad as direct ones. I’ve already explained to great length and detail how I believe SSM causes harm. I’m sorry that you think that I am attacking your life. I think you are attacking mine just as much, but in an indirect way.
Actually, there’s a pretty good Earthly standard, even if it comes from an unEarthly source. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Do you want strangers meddling in your romantic life? Do you want the government passing judgement on the worthiness of your marriage? Do you want people to discriminate against you for characteristics over which you have no control?
Um… “The first and greatest commandment is this: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Upon these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
When asked who one’s neighbor was, he took a half-caste heretic and held him up as an example, in a rather memorable parable. Don’t even think of playing the “higher values” card around here, bucko!
And yes, they are attacking your values – the ones that you think authorize you to impose your rules on their lives. You might look up what our Lord had to say about people who do that sort of thing – Matthew 23-25 is a good place to start.
No, I’m saying that homosexuals are so concerned about their life on Earth that they are willing to put their afterlife at risk. So you don’t believe there is an afterlife. See? We have different values. That’s my point.
So Polycarp, are you saying that Jesus would have voted FOR same sex marriage?
No you haven’t. You have asserted that same sex marriage will contribute to the breakdown of society, but you haven’t explained how that’s supposed to happen in any length or detail at all. All you’ve done is list this litany of complaints about how modern society is going to hell in a handbasket, and then make the unsupported assertion that SSM will somehow hasten this downfall. But you haven’t made any case for this at all. You haven’t even established that things are worse than they were two or five or ten decades ago. Probably you can’t, because things for the most part haven’t actually been getting worse. Oh, sure, you can point to a few examples of horrific actions, like, say, the Columbine shootings, but one incident does not a trend make, and the trends are not obviously going downhill. Teen pregnancy, for example, is on the decline - and to make things worse for you, is far lower in horrible liberal places that allow gay marriages like the Netherlands or Canada than it is in the god-fearing USA. It’s not remotely obvious that things are getting worse. And even if they were, you still have provided us with no reason whatsoever to think that allowing SSM would contribute in any way to things getting worse. You haven’t shown how SSM would have any impact whatsoever on regular families, and it can only strengthen the families of gays and lesbians.
In short, you keep saying over and over again that you’re explaining the reasons you’re opposed to SSM, but you haven’t actually presented anything that resembles a reason. All you’ve done is kept repeating this mantra that allowing SSM will hurt the family, without explaining how it could possibly do that. I could just as well denounce the wearing of navy with beige on the grounds that it will destroy the moral fabric of society. But without any explanation for how it could do that, I haven’t actually presented anything like a reason for opposing the wearing of navy and beige.
Except that you can’t identify any way, even an indirect one, that Miller’s relationship will or even could have any impact negative impact on your life.
I see. Your argument is its converse: you are sufficiently concerned with the afterlives of homosexuals that you would adversely affect their lives on earth. Am I understanding you correctly now?
No you haven’t. You’ve asserted that SSM causes harm, but you’ve never even given a hypothesis concerning the mechanism whereby this harm is caused. You’ve not even shown any correlation between SSM and harm. The sky hasn’t fallen in the various nations that have legalized SSM (or relations near to marriage). It would seem that the harm is imagined or it would be showing up in those nations by now.
*On preview I see Gorsnak said the same thing I did, using some of the same words. Well, I’m posting anyway.
prisoner, let’s get back to those polysorbates in the diet. I’ve proposed that they’re to blame for the downfall in society; you’ve proposed that homosexuality is to blame.
Why do you think your theory has more merit than mine?
I’m teasing you, of course: I don’t think polysorbates are to blame. But I think my theory frankly makes more sense than yours: whereas polysorbates aren’t exactly a positive growth in society (according to me–if you want to debate this, please start another thread), acceptance of the equality of homosexuals is a positive growth, exactly the sort of thing that Jesus encouraged.
When it comes to preserving food, Jesus woulda just waved his hands and done it–forget the chemicals. But when it comes to loving his fellow man, Jesus would’ve encouraged us all to follow his example and show love through deed, not word.
I know you believe that you love spectrum and others by denying them rights–but that’s a very Orwellian type of love. Jesus never showed love to someone by denying them rights.
I thought it was. We’ve never actually purchased a home, so I could very well be wrong here.
Sure, you don’t have a blanket protection. But I have none, which was my point.
In the town where I first went to college, unrelated adults were not allowed to cohabitate homes due to some city ordinance. It’s undoubtedly an old law, but it was there nonetheless.
I’ll see if I can find specific statistics. But I know I’ve read that courts (particularly in the Bad Old South) traditionally side with families, not gay partners, in battles over estates.
I do not believe that being gay, or gay sex, or anyting related to that is a sin. I don’t believe that for an instance. So how am I willing to “put my afterlife at risk?” I think my afterlife will be just dandy, thank you.
You’re right, in this discussion. But I did so in the three links in the OP. Obviously not to your liking. The honest fact is, I don’t have time to go about proving my point. And why should I. No OP has asked me to try to convince them. And if any did, I probably wouldn’t try. These discussions just proved to me that I am incapable of doing so. All I can do is state my side. I see the world as selfish and too indulgent, and it is. And this is coming at the cost of our families. I think it hasn’t always been that way. It’s true that the past was worse IN SOME WAYS. But while improving in some ways, the world has declined in others. I don’t remember any of you agreeing with this. I get the impression that you think that EVERYTHING in the world is better than it was 50 years ago. OF course you cannot expect for everything in the world to improve. But I am going to fight to improve the world to being the way that I think the world should be. I might be wrong. Good thing for you that the world seems to be going against my beliefs. Take heart. I will probably lose this battle. I’m okay with SSM winning in fact. I could probably live next door to same sex neighbors with little problems. But when the world becomes even worse, I’ll wonder if SSM is one of the hundreds of causes.
You assume that we don’t have religious beliefs. Many of us do. I go to church twice a week. I was there last night. I’ll be driving communion out to the elderly and infirm on Sunday. Where do you get off telling me what I do or do not value?
Indirect harm, if it exists, can also be evidenced. Show evidence of how my homosexuality indirectly harms anything or anyone.
NO YOU HAVEN’T.
Jesus H. Christ, for page after page people have been begging you to do that, to explain WITH FACTS AND EXAMPLES how society would be harmed by gay marriage, but you CONTINUALLY REFUSE TO DO SO.
So start. You say that there would be harm, show us the harm.
Many places around the world have had gay marriage for years. Surely there must be examples of societal decay that can be shown to have begun when gay marriage was legalized in those nations.
How? Specifically. I listed some specific ways that you were making my life harder, if not unbearable. Things you haven’t even tried to address, I’ve noticed. So let’s see it: show me how my homosexuality and my loving, supportive, productive relationship harms you in some indirect fashion. Facts, not just assertions.
And please don’t start babbling about lawsuits you don’t understand again.
But on abortion, you can make a logical case that harm is being done. You can draw a clear picture and explain why you think harm is being done. Someone else may not agree, but you can make the case.
You haven’t even done that much when it comes to the evils upon society being caused by all uis filthy faggots. You just throw out assertion and then run and hide when called to support them.
Specific issues have been raised in this thread, repeatedly. Address them. Here.
Specific questions have been posed, specific issues raised here. You should address them here.
Your reasoning in the linked threads is embarassing (me hate women folk, me hate gay folk, me hate progress), so I’d stop trying to increase the number of people who read your misogynist ranting in those threads. Address the specific questions here. Stop trying to hide behind other threads, other posters, other people’s words.
Stand your ground, or admit to being an intellectual coward and let us end this farce of a debate.
You seem to have plenty of time to prattle on about unrelated nonsense like the McDonald’s case, or to discuss at length about why you don’t have time to discuss at length the actual issue of debate. Stall and hide. Stall and hide. Your lack of ability to support your own arguments is becoming increasingly transparent, and increasingly enraging.
“And it is”? You say you can’t support your arguments, then you have the arrogant presumption to tell us how “it is,” with an emphatic? What, did you stomp your foot and yell “Because I say so!” when you typed that, too?
Statistics showing this, please?
[quote]
I could probably live next door to same sex neighbors with little problems.[/qupte]
This statement alone makes you sound like a raging bigot.
Sorry, I forgot to address this. You obviously interpret the Bible differently than I. So do YOU think that Jesus would vote for SSM?
In the case of SSM, until you admit that the world is becoming worse (and I grant you that I haven’t proven that in this discussion) it’s quite impossible. And even if we did agree that the world is becoming worse, you would disagree that SSM is a contributing factor, as Left Hand of Dorkness clever funny argument about polysorbates exibits. We could find statistics on both sides of the argument that co-relate. So, if you don’t believe me, you have to either take my word for it (for the time being) or disagree with me.
See? You keep asking for specifics. DIRECT evidence. The evidence, when I present it, is indirect. And since it’s indirect, it would be possible for you to find several contributing factors. And even though I think that SSM will be one of the contributing factors, you will be able to say that it isn’t a contributing factor, or at least if it is the other contributing factors (like pre-marital sex) have more of an influence.
Regardless, I don’t have time for this. So, if you really want a hypothesis, evidence that supports the theory that the world is in a state of decline, in which way the world is declining, a definition of morality, and how SSM plays a part in all of that, and evidence which supports that theory, you’ll have to be patient. I’m not against doing it, but I have more important things to do than attempt to prove to you guys that you should vote against SSM. I admit that I’ve “praddled” on. I’ve wasted far too much time defending my right to a vote. Sorry. I’ll stop now.
Huh? Because you’re in Great Debates. Do you go to a book club and say, “The honest fact is, I don’t have time to tell you what I think of this book. And why should I”? If you don’t want to debate, why are you here?
If it makes you feel better, of course i don’t believe that. Families have much more trouble living on a single income now than they did 50 years ago; this means that kids rarely get a stay-at-home parent (whether mom or dad), which is a bad thing. Fewer home-cooked meals mean that kids don’t develop a sensual appreciation for food, which is a bad thing. People are too quick to respond to children’s behavior issues by drugging their kids, which is a bad thing. Our climate faces increasing crises, which is a bad thing. Our food has more polysorbates in them, and you know what I think of that.
However, among the GOOD things is that homosexuals are physically and emotionally safer than they were 50 years ago. We have a way to go before we quit treating our neighbors as second-class citizens, but we’re also a lot further than we used to be.
You’ll probably lose it because you can’t muster a single rational argument in favor of your position–and nobody else, as far as I’ve seen, has had any better luck. Your “probably” as a qualification for whether you could live next door to “same sex” couples is disturbing, and the phrase “same sex neighbors” is unintentionally hilarious. And your wonder about whether SSM is one of the hundreds of causes for the world getting worse is bizarre.
Opinions, you see, are different from beliefs. SSM either is or is not, objectively speaking, going to contribute to any specific social ill. Unless you can provide any proof that a link exists, your claim lacks merit. That’s not an opinion–“same sex marriage is a good thing” is an opinion.
You may hold to your opinions and suffer little more than nasty looks. But when you say things that are beliefs, and when the beliefs are entirely unsupported, you may expect people to contradict you on substance.
Then you really shouldn’t go opening threads in GD on the subject, as proving your point is pretty much the entire fucking point of the forum.
Yes, we know what your opinion is. What we want to know is what you base that opinion upon.
I would hesitate to say “everything” is better, but yeah, I think most things are better now than they were fifty years ago. I can’t think of an exception, but I’m sure one will come to me eventually.
You “might” be wrong, and yet you refuse to take any steps to determine if you are actually wrong. You’ve got your little world view that is, from all appearances, wholly divorced from any sort of objective fact. You’ve basically made a guess that SSM will harm society, and have then proceeded to fuck with the lives of people who have never done you harm or insult based on nothing more than your guess.