Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Franzl]

This whole thing was never about same sex marriages.  Its about the secular progressives seeing chance for victory on a lifestyle that is deemed secular by society.  Using gay marriage as a battling ram to knock down the will of the voters who oppose them.  The have alot of power too in certain places. blacklisting, attacking Churches, and even on internet forums attacking those who oppose the view they hold. 

Theres no need for name calling.

Why haven't you responded to me three times in a row now...?

I'm calling you no names.

^^^^^^^^^^

and me as well...

Funny, isn't it Alcon...how people cut and run from arguments they're losing?

[Franzl]

I'm not running from anybody and Iam not losing any argument.

You guys are being offensive with your race bating.

lol...race bating....you don't understand any parallels?

Then you're the one being offensive, pal.

Quite respectfully....I request that you provide a response to Alcon's or my arguments...please tell us why our logic is flawed.

[Franzl]

And another thing: You keep claiming that marriage is a defined institution meaning "between a man and a woman (bla bla bla)". Let me ask: WHO definied this institution. If you can't come up with any non-religious arguments, then they definitely should not be valid in political discussion. Churches, of course, should be able to grant marriage to whoever they want...and deny it accordingly....but the churches' decisions should have NO effect on government policy. There is such a thing as seperation of church and state...ever heard of it?

Keller...if you find the time....what about this little comment I made that you haven't responded too yet?

I'm still waiting for a logical answer.


I must confess, however, that as this "debate" (because only one side has actually been debating thus far) has progressed....I'm starting to take you even less serious. You won't respond to ANY arguments...and then you resort to accusing people of insults...race baiting, etc. You won't get many friends here by playing that way. Grow up.

[Franzl]

I think we should just stop. Keller will keep repeating the same old stuff without contradicting our actual arguments, and if all else fails...we get to be accused of race baiting.

Anyway, I think I've found one of my first people to put on ignore.

[Franzl]

I think we should just stop. Keller will keep repeating the same old stuff without contradicting our actual arguments, and if all else fails...we get to be accused of race baiting.

Anyway, I think I've found one of my first people to put on ignore.

Put the facts on ignore?

what "facts"?

[Franzl]

I think we should just stop. Keller will keep repeating the same old stuff without contradicting our actual arguments, and if all else fails...we get to be accused of race baiting.

Anyway, I think I've found one of my first people to put on ignore.

Put the facts on ignore?

what "facts"?

The ones you plan to put on ignore.

Whats with this  traditional  war you seem to be wanting to fight?  Marriage isn't damn thanksgiving or a 4th of July party "tradition".   Its a "socital institution" that Ive pretty much explained throughout this debate. 

It's pretty damn arrogant to accuse me of ignoring facts when you STILL have NOT responded to my previous post. Your "facts" are quite easily shown to be bigoted talking points....and not much more.

[Franzl]

I didn't say all of them "Most" not all.

I have met some homosexual people who I really felt was born gay.

You do have bisexuals and closet gay people.. don't forget about those.

Do you think government policy should have to consider in individual cases....whether to grant certain rights....based on whether the person's homosexuality is "intentional"?

[Franzl]

I didn't say all of them "Most" not all.

I have met some homosexual people who I really felt was born gay.

You do have bisexuals and closet gay people.. don't forget about those.

Do you think government policy should have to consider in individual cases....whether to grant certain rights....based on whether the person's homosexuality is "intentional"?

What rights?   Of course homosexuals should be afforded rights like everbody else, however that doesn't mean changing a institution to mean something else.   Once again this isn't a civil rights issue.

bla bla bla....you keep saying the same bulls**t. You are now on ignore. Good bye Keller.

[Franzl]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

He doesn't understand the difference between comparing something based on the underlying theory and actually implying that the two things are equal. And "race baiting" is Keller's "get-out-of-jail-free" card that he is constantly using because he can't think of any arguments for his position.

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

Its not about tradition, not everbody gets married and to be honest I most likely will not.  You seem to want me to make the tradition argument.  My logic behind keeping marriage as a man and woman is something that I have stated many times in this Thread.

Logic's seem to be a word you like to use and heres mine:

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Yes, I support "Civil Unions" because not allowing a gay couple to have the same civil rights as in preventing insurance coverages, medical benefits and other economic things that heterosexuals enjoy would be a civil rights violation. This is a valid argument that your side seems to not care about anymore.

And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question

IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

If having chilrdren is better for society (and I agree that it probably is....but I disagree that the government should make it their primary concern....at least not over personal freedom)....then would you like to make having children among heterosexual couples mandatory...because that seems to be what you're saying...?

After all....if they don't have children, they're not contributing to society! Do you think heterosexual couples should have to sign a contract promising to have kids in order to get married? How many should they be forced to have? 1? 2?

Where does this craziness stop?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

Its not about tradition, not everbody gets married and to be honest I most likely will not.  You seem to want me to make the tradition argument.  My logic behind keeping marriage as a man and woman is something that I have stated many times in this Thread.

Logic's seem to be a word you like to use and heres mine:

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Yes, I support "Civil Unions" because not allowing a gay couple to have the same civil rights as in preventing insurance coverages, medical benefits and other economic things that heterosexuals enjoy would be a civil rights violation. This is a valid argument that your side seems to not care about anymore.

And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question

IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

If having chilrdren is better for society (and I agree that it probably is....but I disagree that the government should make it their primary concern....at least not over personal freedom)....then would you like to make having children among heterosexual couples mandatory...because that seems to be what you're saying...?

After all....if they don't have children, they're not contributing to society! Do you think heterosexual couples should have to sign a contract promising to have kids in order to get married? How many should they be forced to have? 1? 2?

Where does this craziness stop?

No Franzl, I don't think Gov should force people to have babies.  I'm not some right wing religious nut case.  I'm just here to defend the other point of view not "champion the cause" for heterosexuals and making baby's.  Its unfortunate that some people are unable to have children, and no marriage shouldn't be denied to them. Lets be honest when a man and woman marry they plan on having children at some point. You're a smart kid and I'm sure you know that.


Think of me defending this view as a lawyer in court, and stop assuming my deep personal beliefs.

proof? I don't "know" that because it's competely untrue.

And IF it WERE true...why would you support granting marriage to sterile couples?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

Its not about tradition, not everbody gets married and to be honest I most likely will not.  You seem to want me to make the tradition argument.  My logic behind keeping marriage as a man and woman is something that I have stated many times in this Thread.

Logic's seem to be a word you like to use and heres mine:

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Yes, I support "Civil Unions" because not allowing a gay couple to have the same civil rights as in preventing insurance coverages, medical benefits and other economic things that heterosexuals enjoy would be a civil rights violation. This is a valid argument that your side seems to not care about anymore.

And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question

IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

If having chilrdren is better for society (and I agree that it probably is....but I disagree that the government should make it their primary concern....at least not over personal freedom)....then would you like to make having children among heterosexual couples mandatory...because that seems to be what you're saying...?

After all....if they don't have children, they're not contributing to society! Do you think heterosexual couples should have to sign a contract promising to have kids in order to get married? How many should they be forced to have? 1? 2?

Where does this craziness stop?

No Franzl, I don't think Gov should force people to have babies.  I'm not some right wing religious nut case.  I'm just here to defend the other point of view not "champion the cause" for heterosexuals and making baby's.  Its unfortunate that some people are unable to have children, and no marriage shouldn't be denied to them. Lets be honest when a man and woman marry they plan on having children at some point. You're a smart kid and I'm sure you know that.


Think of me defending this view as a lawyer in court, and stop assuming my deep personal beliefs.

proof? I don't "know" that because it's competely untrue.

And IF it WERE true...why would you support granting marriage to sterile couples?

Because they are Man and Woman and it's unfortunate that their Equipment isn't working. You wanted me to defend this institution  of marriage and that's what I did. 

wait a minute....now you're really going around in circles. You're using YOUR definition of marriage in order to defend it. That's not an argument. Try again.

[Franzl]

If indeed the purpose of marriage is to reproduce...as you yourself claimed, then it would be logical to deny marriage to any pair of people that are not capable of said reproduction. Anything else would not be consistent with your "ideology" and would point to your simple bias for heterosexual marriage....(and if you admitted that, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with your view....it's your attempt to "debate" that gets me upset."

[Franzl]

If indeed the purpose of marriage is to reproduce...as you yourself claimed, then it would be logical to deny marriage to any pair of people that are not capable of said reproduction. Anything else would not be consistent with your "ideology" and would point to your simple bias for heterosexual marriage....(and if you admitted that, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with your view....it's your attempt to "debate" that gets me upset."

You are mixing up words buddy.  The relationship between family structure and child is very important to our society.  You are scraping with this "granting marriage to sterile couples" pettiness. I never ruled out changing my mind if it turns out same sex couples can raise children just as good.  The data is inconclusive and underdeveloped.

Interestingly enough I support giving gay couples adoption rights.   I'm not far right as you think on this issue.

How am I mixing up words? You clearly stated that reproduction is the primary goal of marriage. Quote: "Let's be honest...people that get married want to have children eventually." (or very similar). You seemed to be implying that that be used as an argument against gay marriage.

Secondly...why should this even play a role?

I'll ask this question again...why can't anyone be free to marry anyone they want? Why should the state be able to dictate what qualifies as a legitimate reason or condition to marry?

[Franzl]

I don't accept civil unions as a "compromise" because I don't believe they truly are one. Just because something is in the middle of two positions, doesn't make it a fair solution. (and no....it's not really the middle, it's obviously closer to gay marriage than not)

Ultimately, although civil unions are preferable to what most states have now...full gay marriage rights are the morally correct way.

[Franzl]

I don't accept civil unions as a "compromise" because I don't believe they truly are one. Just because something is in the middle of two positions, doesn't make it a fair solution. (and no....it's not really the middle, it's obviously closer to gay marriage than not)

Ultimately, although civil unions are preferable to what most states have now...full gay marriage rights are the morally correct way.

I could be very far right and say:  NO GAY MARRIGES OR ANYTHING PERIOD!!!!   While clinging to my guns, bible and bigotries. LOL

I think Civil Unions should be mandated 50 states, that's more then most politicans are willing to say.

I'm standing my ground on the institution of marriage. 

Everybody should open to changing their mind if the facts change is all I will say.

And that's your perfectly good right.

And it's my right to point out that your arguments are worthless, no problem there. Everyone's free in that regard.

[Franzl]

I'm saying the government could issue civil unions to all couples, and churches could decide what they call "marriage."  Why don't you like that?

And that would be the optimal solution.