Well if making it more specific makes it more special, then hell, let’s restrict marriage to one man and one woman of the same race. Or even better, one man and one woman of the same race with the same eye color. That’s one special institution, ain’t it? No wait, it’s dumb because restrictions based on physical characteristics is arbitrary and serves no benefit.
magellan01, to be consistent, would have had to oppose the end of Jim Crow laws on the basis that the meaning of “front of the bus” would be diluted by letting the coloreds share it.
Repeatedly the experts say that the parents are the primary influence on the child, meaning most important. But I never said gays raising children is unacceptable. Any parent is better than none. I did say it is not optimum and nothing but natural nuclear families should be promoted. But we’ll settle for less if its the best we can get.
Yes, you do have that right, and have had it ever since Roe.
Now, kindly explain your point.
Considering that you keep going on about how great a guy you are, no it isn’t.
Yes they are, whether you choose to admit it or not. You just don’t want to admit that you are the 21st century version of the guys who ranted about how interracial marriage was evil.
In other words, they should pay and pay and pay for what straights get just for marrying. And are you really going to argue that a wife shouldn’t be allowed to choose what happens to her dead husband’s body just because that has nothing to do with children?
You have provided no evidence that it is damaging at all.
It is however rather obviously your actual motivation.
Because they don’t exist. You’ve simply asserted that SSM somehow damages marriage without providing any explanation for how that’s even possible.
Nope none of them are my best friends. But I have compassion for some.
After all, your claim is I am a hater. Why is it valid for you to hate gays but my claim that I don’t is invalid?
I can support gays as people and not support some of their activities.
If your best friend drives drunk, don’t say, “Hey, I love you bro, but you shouldn’t drive drunk?”
:rolleyes: I don’t hate gays. And your comparison of their relationships to excrement, your “speculation” that they are plotting against marriage, your desire to persecute them are all glaring signs that you do indeed hate them.
In other words, you want to stomp on them while making speeches about how nice a guy you are.
You started with the ad hominems and the moderator has been notified. I defended myself when YOU WENT ON AND ON about what a bad guy I am.
Stop the ad hominem stuff.
My motivation is irrelevant. I could just as easily claim your motivation is the destruction of all morals in our culture. But it would be irrelevant to the arguments you make, which seem to be nothing more than one news story in which you ignored the flaws, attacking me personally, and generally explaining I am wrong without saying why I am wrong.
Ah, the old civilization becoming more enlightened ploy. It might interest you to know that homosexuality has been around since time immemorial. And during that time, there have been thousands and thousands of societal experiments that had different levels of acceptance for it. Yet, even in those societies in which it was a very accepted fact of life, they didn’t go as far as to equate the special relationships that SS couples might have with the very special relationship opposite sex couples could have. While the emotions regarding the individuals involved might be identical (the love they feel), only one situation ALSO comports with the way animals and people reproduce.
So, there has been thousands and thousands of experiments over the years, yet no society that we are aware of saw fit to treat SS relationships the same as OS ones. Even those that predate Christian thought (so you can’t blame it on that). I grant you that there exists the possibility that some failed civilization we’re unaware of may have embraced what you seek now. But that doesn’t help you at all. Because that means that either such societies didn’t exist or they existed and something about them made them fail. And if every single society that equated SS couples with OS couples failed, that doesn’t make embracing SS marriage look like such an attractive notion.
Denial of special priveleges based on self gratification is not persecution. Beating gays, firing them from jobs, and refusing them housing IS persecution.
I suppose if your friend murders someone you are in favor of murder in order to support your friend?
In other words, you don’t like that I criticize your beliefs and are attempting to use the Mods as a threat to silence me.
Yet you keep going on about how great a guy you are and how all of your personal problems aren’t your fault but due to “permissiveness” and those awful gays.
Good job exposing the “it’s good because it is modern” logical fallacy. I wish everyone here would educate themselves on the various fallacies before the get out to make an argument.
Dude, seriously. Metaphor school.
Marriage isn’t a privilege that we grant to a select group. It’s available to anyone. Except gay people. Because…uh…no good reason, really. Some people find gay people “icky”.
Most of the arguments being used to argue against same-sex marriage today are the same ones that were used to argue against interracial marriage in the 1950s and 1960s, by the way.
You have ignored the question. what about those who do not? It seems marriage is for breeding in your world.
Marriage isn’t a special privilege. It’s available even to rapists and mass murderers; it couldn’t get less “special”.
And now you compare SSM to murder. But you don’t hate homosexuals, nope not at all. :rolleyes:
repeatedly, they’ve also shown, through actual science that children raised by gay couples as their primary caregivers do just as well or better academically, socially, emotionally, athletically and so on, than children raised by straight couples. It’s not optimum only in the sense that it’s equal with more traditional methods of raising kids. You keep saying it’s inferior, but from an objective standpoint, it’s not.
No, I dislike you addressing my personal qualities as an (invalid) argument technique and alerted the moderators because you are violating the rules which are intended to keep reasonable discussions reasonable, which is apparently impossible with you.
You think this is an unreasonable discussion?
Oh, dear.
Either you’re (A) supporting the observation that we’re finally advancing, or (B) you’re differentiating between “special” and “very special”, utterly without either factual or moral basis. I’ll let you cop to (A), and allow that you’re just not realizing it, k?
And the tattered flag of “it’s to support children”, newly flown in response to the grave societal threat of letting the fudgepackers and muffmunchers use the same word as normal people, still hangs in the breeze …
You might have observed, in your history lecture, that racial equality also was experimented with many times but never succeeded until we finally decided to make it succeed. But that would have undermined whatever point you still think you have left, wouldn’t it?
No. You are just trying to get the mods to silence me because you can’t win with the nonexistent merits of your argument. That is of course the reason you are making such a point of saying you’ve “alerted” the moderators, over and over again. It’s attempted intimidation.