Ah, another favorite of the Right; “You aren’t worthy to debate me!”
Let’s see your argument for how to do that without violating their privacy. The world isn’t perfect, but some standards of decency exist.
You still ignore the main point: ON THE FACE OF IT, gays do not reproduce, and straights do. It does not make the argument invalid that society’s interest is something other than the protection of children to point out a few cases where there were no children.
You violate the privacy of a straight couple to enquire about the possibility they can reproduce. You do not violate the privacy of a gay couple to do the same because it is obvious they can’t.
Who said I was a right-winger?
I didn’t address you. I addressed your ad hominem. It’s impossible to debate someone whose favortie tactic is insults and bullying.
Address the issues please.
A silly argument, as people who openly say they don’t want or can’t have children can still get married. And if trampling on people by the hundreds of thousands is justified, then a medical examination certainly is. Except of course the straight couples aren’t the ones you are trying to persecute, so you don’t want to bother.
I ignore it because it’s irrelevant, and an argument that has no purpose but to justify oppression. The allegedly all consuming importance of having children is only brought up when someone wants to use it as an excuse to stomp on someone else.
Who did I harass and repress? You are cherry picking my statements out of context and ignoring many things I said.
Homosexuals have NO children within the union they seek to protect. I am all for protecting whatever union a homosexual has that produces a child.
I don’t know about loonies, but the gay activists have certainly advocated that all gay couples adopt so they can prove that children raised in gay families are just as well off as those raised in straight families, or better off, they like to claim, as though gays are perfect. But if you are claiming that gay activists are loony, you might be on to something.
You are taking a right wing position and using standard right wing arguments.
Homosexuals, of course. You support the institutionalized bigotry of refusing them marriage. That’s persecution. That’s repression. That’s harassment.
I repeat: continually addressing my motivations is not a valid argument tactic. Its ad hominem and is irrelevant.
Leave my goals out of it and address the arguments.
It is not irrelevant. If it is, you should have suggested long ago the TRUE purpose that society has protected marriage for thousands of years. I haven’t notice you make such a suggestion, other than to claim I am wrong.
What is the REAL INTEREST society has in marriage?
I can easily shoot down any sort of self-gratification answer, so don’t even try that nonsense.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I reject all other right-wing positions on other issues. Am I still a right winger?
Now can you somehow say that without addressing what kind of person I am, and my motivations? Because you are violating the conditions of posting to do it.
You do not know me. Fact be known, I supported a homeless gay guy for six months last year as a roommate. I endured speculation from some that I was gay. I’m not cruel to gays, my friend, just because of a philosophical view.
“Self gratification” is the answer, so shoot away. The existence of the institution of marriage is desirable because billions of people want such an institution, and it doesn’t trample on other people for such an institution to exist. Humans are a pair bonding species and they find it useful for that bond to have legal recognition. And homosexual couples have such bonds just as heterosexual couples do.
A question to be settled when and if you do such a thing, which I seriously doubt will happen.
Its just as easy to claim you are attempting the repression of heterosexual marriage by supporting something else. Give it up and stick to the issues and not me personally.
Because opposing SSM is persecution regardless of why you claim to do it. And because it is a position without rational or moral justification.
Ah, another version of the old "some of my best friends are ‘X’ " line.
That’s a silly argument. Supporting “something else” isn’t repressing anything. Forbidding something; that is repression.
Once again you know so much about me. How do you know I do not reject all other right wing arguments? Once again avoidance is your answer, not a valid argument technique.
Ok, so self gratification is your answer? You say it is because lots of people want it without trampling others.
I have made a clear case that gay marriage tramples the ability of straights to maintain marriages. Not alone, but in conjunction with other trends. I myself cannot marry the person I love, and the reason she says, to quote her " Marriage–so meaningless gays can do it!"
You have no business imposing your definition of marriage on me based on self-gratification.
When did society protect things based on nothing but desire? We protect plenty of needs but I can’t think of anytime we created a special class based on their mere desires. Name one institution we have created which does so. You’re way out on a limb.
I support marriage as a union of one man and one woman, available to all who want to marry the opposite sex. You want to end that concept, which I find to be repressive because it adds to the distaste for marriage we already have too much of.
Why does it add to the distaste? I find a discriminatory definition of “one man, one woman” to be far more distasteful than “two consenting adults”.
I find gay marriage a strong support of the institution of marriage. That other long term committed couples want the endorsement of the community and a public acknowledgement of their commitment only endorses marriage’s importance and validity. If gays joining the marriage “club” means marriage is diminished, then what does that really say about your opinion of gay people?
I don’t support kicking in doors. Instead I support the 4th amendment. That isn’t repressive because I forbid kicking in doors.
Nice try, but entirely sophomoric.
In the end, all pro-gay marriage arguments break down into how bad straight marriage advocates are. I’m not listening to the ad hominem that I am a “hater.”