Apparently a lot a people WANT to eat feces and the only thing stopping them is laws against it. They need a nanny state to protect them against eating their own waste.
Similarly, gays need the government to protect them from the damaging effects of homosexual marriage.
But of course, him comparing a homosexual relationship to eating feces doesn’t at all imply that he’s just one of those people who thinks Homosexuality Is Icky. He’s got lots of homosexual friends and perfectly rational and reasonable evidence based arguments for why same sex marriages should be banned…which he’ll provide…any time now…
Are they equivalent to a couple who choose not to have children or find they can not? Should their marriage rights be removed?
Whether or not gays find me attractive is of course irrelevant, and my mentioning it is in the context of what I personally will not tolerate from gays. Your point is irrelevant and ad hominem.
Now you are claiming I hate other races too?
Gay issues are not the equivalent of race issues. There is nothing whites can do that blacks can’t that is inherent in their race. Keeping the races apart is arbitrary, meaning it is not based in reason.
Gays cannot produce children as gays, only if they embrace heterosexual reproduction. It is the reproduction that is primarily valued and has been for millenia.
Proof that it is based on reproduction from ancient times is evident in the bible (this is not imposition of theocracy to mention that humans have valued reproduction for millenia because it is in the bible. Proof that humans eat food is in the bible too, but me proving humans have always eaten food by pointing to the bible doesn’t mean an imposition of religion. its proof that humans have done something for a long time.) when it says “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply ; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”
Again, I mention the bible as proof that marriage from antiquity is based on child rearing. My argument against gay marriage is not “God said so.” Please do not build another strawman about my imposition of theocracy, but instead attempt to prove that humans have not valued reproduction for millenia, if you think I am wrong.
If these rights and privileges have nothing to do with keeping families intact, then I may be against extending those rights and privileges to anyone. Many of these rights and privileges are already available to gays if they would simply take steps to secure them.
His two main points seem to be:
Homosexual marriage undermines heterosexual marriage.
Children fare poorly when raised by homosexual couples.
I haven’t seen him advance any specific arguments to support the first point.
And in the case of the second, the correct question should be whether its worse for children to be raised by an unmarried homosexual couple or a married homosexual couple. People don’t rationally choose who they fall in love with. The question is – are the children being raised by such a couple helped or hurt by governmental recognition of their shared responsibility?
If accept the premise as I stated it, it makes perfect sense. If everybody but you thought feces was food, you’d be pretty darn concerned.
It makes no snese when you change the premise to “If I promote feces as food, and no-one believes it, is good nutrition damaged?” Which is what you guys are doing.
Now do a thought eperiment where you envision a world where feces is largely accepted as food.
You almost got it right. My first point isn’t that homosexual marriage alone is sufficiently damaging. It probably isn’t. But seen in the light of seventy years of one blow after another to marriage, all the protections are gone. And I did advance the arguments. Problem is they are being ignored or ridiculed without any thoughtful consideration, I keep getting these ad hominems, and people keep changing my arguments leaving this or that out, which is building strawmen.
I’m practically begging for someone to address this out of logic, and telling you I might be persuaded if you can argue well enough and avoid the fallacies and insults.
“Not True” isn’t good enough. T
Large numbers of people would get violently ill, instantly calling into question that belief.
However, you have failed to demonstrate that allowing gay marriage would cause similar real-world harm.
Do couples who decide against children sometimes wind up pregnant and raising a child anyway? Yes. Do people who think they are barren sometimes have a child anyway? Yes.
Do gays, as a result of gay sex sometimes wind up conceiving a child? No.
Suppose they all thought they were sick from something in the air instead. I mean its awful dumb, but a lot of popular ideas are awfully dumb.
How is homosexual marriage a “blow” to heterosexual marriage?
How is a child raised by married homosexuals worse off than a child raised by a single parent with a live-in homosexual lover?
“The existing law”, at both federal and state level, requires equal protection of the laws for all persons. No exceptions or limitations. How can accepting anything less be considered to uphold that law?
“Almost”? :dubious: Perhaps your definition of “equal” is more elastic than most people’s.
Perhaps someday the magellans and Davids will come to see that this latest advance in civilization does not detract from the institution of man/woman marriage at all, it merely removes a restriction on it that they cannot reason their way into defending. But that day is not, alas, today.
I do think it is icky, but its not part of my argument.
Why don’t you go read the posts where those arguments are instead of dismissing them out of hand?
Merely saying its not so isn’t persuasive. Why is it not so?
Do you even know what a heartbalm is? thats where my argument started and yours against it should start there too. Unless it is conceded that heartbalms damaged marriage. then we can move on to the next point. But you’re a broken record saying I failed without explaining the failure.
Actually, I take it back. This is an excellent metaphor. Indeed, what IF there were a lot of people that supported doing something harmful simply because they were stupidly and foolishly ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary and manufacturing their own false and unsupportable evidence to convince others that the harmful thing was really not harmful at all, maybe even GOOD for all of us?
That would be a situation worth putting a stop to, is what I think.
(Do you guys think I need to un-subtle this up a little for David’s benefit?)
No parent of the opposite sex to provide alternate viewpoints. This is not the end of the world, but it is not optimum. But this was never really my argument, this is something I got sidetracked into.
Unsubtle all you like.
Pray tell, do I ahve a right to an abortion? (I’m male) Maybe if you think about this, you’ll start understanding equal protection.
You’re right in that if couples want the societal endorsement that comes with “marriage” that is, indeed" a testament to it’s importance and validity. It does not necessarily follow that expanding the concept of marriage to include them will not dilute the concept of the very importance you mention. I think it does. And logic agrees with me. For instance, here in the U.S., as in most of the West, we tend to think of marriage as that special bond between one man and one woman. That idea(l) gets diluted when you expand the meaning of the word to mean either two people of the same sex or polygamous marriages.
That dog won’t hunt as it means no single parent households either. Coupled with the fact that family friends, relatives and older siblings can function as ‘an opposite sex viewpoint’ means that the ‘two parents of opposite sex required’ argument is a dead end.
Part of the problem here, Der Trihs, is that I keep talking about society as a whole and what is damaging to them AS A GROUP, and you keep talking about what is damaging to individuals.
Is it damaging to the public’s nutrition as a whole.