Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[afleitch]

By society hints the "socital institution"
 
Times of racial separation was indeed a fact, but the basic concept of marriage has ALWAYS  stayed the same MAN + WOMAN.  Never has that changed.   What part of the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children as a institution don't you understand?  You keep saying that the definition of marriage has changed?   That's not true.

Now that's not true as has been explained before. In some cultures in the past (and indeed today) it has been between MAN + WOMAN + WOMAN or, MAN + FEMALE CHILD or, CHILD + CHILD. And don't forget the Sudanese man who was forced to marry a goat and pay a dowry. Bear in mind it was in accordance to their 'institution' of marriage that he was forced to do so.

Marriage in the Indian subcontinent between child brides had nothing to do with procreation at all (as it was a physical impossibility) - it was to do with land and inheritance. In countries where they have gay marriage and have for a few years now, it is now for them an 'institution'(and no one has been allowed to marry their dog)

You have to think outside the bubble of western society before you start banging on about 'traditions' and 'institutions'

By "you guys" I mean as in the secular progressives who want the people who are gay or lesbian, to wear it out front.  Its not just with the homosexual lifestyle neither, its with many other secular causes. 

If you think that my wish to get married, settle down, pay my taxes and grow old safe in the knowledge that my partner will be cared for if I die is 'wearing it out front' then we must have vastly different interpretations as to what that actually means.

[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"?

[Alcon]

Put the facts on ignore?

Put the Appeal to Tradition fallacy on ignore.

You're not really responding to our arguments; we are to yours.  You're just repeating your own, even if we've already addressed what they say.  And then you're complaining about how we're just "secular progressives" trying to force gay marriage down your throat.

But you ignored when I asked you to explain that, too, or at least explain how you aren't doing the same with us.  You already effectively have what we're saying on ignore, so to speak.

[MK]

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. 

[Alcon]

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. 

Yes, it's a social institution.  But our argument is that there is no harm in expanding the social institution to be more inclusive, and remove an apparent double-standard.  It may actually strengthen the social institution.

Instead of providing evidence of why it might weaken said institution, you just keep repeating that it's traditional.  That's where you get into fallacetic argument territory.

[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.

[MK]

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. 

Yes, it's a social institution.  But our argument is that there is no harm in expanding the social institution to be more inclusive, and remove an apparent double-standard.  It may actually strengthen the social institution.

Instead of providing evidence of why it might weaken said institution, you just keep repeating that it's traditional.  That's where you get into fallacetic argument territory.

No sir, you are now making up pure lies.  You want me to say "traditional" so you can use the typical left wing attack of "oh hes talking about traditions again". You have already admitted what marriage is.

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights.  In another thread the N- word was even directed at me.

[Alcon]

No sir, you are now making up pure lies.  You want me to say "traditional" so you can use the typical left wing attack of "oh hes talking about traditions again". You have already admitted what marriage is.

Chill out.  I'm not "making up lies."  At most, I'm misinterpreting your argument.  I know it seems like you're being ganged up on, but I really didn't mean to misunderstand your contention if I was doing so.

If your argument isn't from tradition, what is it?  Why shouldn't the definition of a social institution be changed?  You keep saying that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman."  I don't think my assuming that was an Appeal from Tradition is much of a leap.  If it wasn't that, what was it?

On the other hand, this is the third time I have to point out that I wasn't "race-baiting," but rather testing for logical consistency.  I don't understand why you aren't taking me at my word on that.  What can I do to demonstrate that was my intention, beyond what I have already done?

[afleitch]

We are trying to understand where you are coming from Mike - to point out or challenge an inconsistency is nothing personal, just an attempt to do just that.

It would help you to respond to some of the threads that have been posted  - like this for example

Now that's not true as has been explained before. In some cultures in the past (and indeed today) it has been between MAN + WOMAN + WOMAN or, MAN + FEMALE CHILD or, CHILD + CHILD. And don't forget the Sudanese man who was forced to marry a goat and pay a dowry. Bear in mind it was in accordance to their 'institution' of marriage that he was forced to do so.

Marriage in the Indian subcontinent between child brides had nothing to do with procreation at all (as it was a physical impossibility) - it was to do with land and inheritance. In countries where they have gay marriage and have for a few years now, it is now for them an 'institution'(and no one has been allowed to marry their dog)

You have to think outside the bubble of western society before you start banging on about 'traditions' and 'institutions'

I don't think I'm being devious to ask you to consider a world view. Same sex marriage is due to be legalised in a non-Christian majority country soon - Nepal.

[Sbane]

Nepal is getting gay marriage? Now that would be a surprise

Mike I have a question...do you think homosexuality is a choice?

[MK]

Nepal is getting gay marriage? Now that would be a surprise

Mike I have a question...do you think homosexuality is a choice?

For most of them.

[afleitch]

Nepal is getting gay marriage? Now that would be a surprise

Mike I have a question...do you think homosexuality is a choice?

For most of them.

A second question - do you believe heterosexuality is a choice?

[afleitch]

And third question - why has it changed from this?

I use to believe that you are not born gay, however in recent years after research and being around some gay folks I now believe you are born gay.

[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"?

[MK]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

For those people you have met, who you consider to be born gay, does it really matter to you if they get married? If they have a little family wedding like everyone else, move to a house, work and go on vacation every year and grow old together what, to you, are they doing to society? What are they damaging? What are they cheapening?

The Netherlands have had gay marriage for 7 years now and life simply goes on. Gay and straights still marry (and still divorce). The state isn't allowing people to marry their cat or letting people have 6 wives. The 'slope' isn't slippery. It's not slippery in Belgium either, or Spain or even in South Africa.

[Flying Dog]

I still get a chuckle when marriage is referred to as an "institution" or "sacred." Just look at history. I mean, marriage has been used as a political ploy, used to seal national alliances, and just as a means to procreate. Just go back to King Henry to see how sacred he viewed marriage. The sanctity of marriage, if there ever was a concept, certainly doesn't exist anymore. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a sacrament awarded to you by God for you to make holy. It doesn't come that way.


By the way, the whole concept of Gay's choosing their sexuality is a concept that even the most conservative Catholics won't even defend any more.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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.

For those people you have met, who you consider to be born gay, does it really matter to you if they get married? If they have a little family wedding like everyone else, move to a house, work and go on vacation every year and grow old together what, to you, are they doing to society? What are they damaging? What are they cheapening?

The Netherlands have had gay marriage for 7 years now and life simply goes on. Gay and straights still marry (and still divorce). The state isn't allowing people to marry their cat or letting people have 6 wives. The 'slope' isn't slippery. It's not slippery in Belgium either, or Spain or even in South Africa.

How is the population outlook in Europe right now?

Denser than the United States of America.

[Flying Dog]

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.

For those people you have met, who you consider to be born gay, does it really matter to you if they get married? If they have a little family wedding like everyone else, move to a house, work and go on vacation every year and grow old together what, to you, are they doing to society? What are they damaging? What are they cheapening?

The Netherlands have had gay marriage for 7 years now and life simply goes on. Gay and straights still marry (and still divorce). The state isn't allowing people to marry their cat or letting people have 6 wives. The 'slope' isn't slippery. It's not slippery in Belgium either, or Spain or even in South Africa.

How is the population outlook in Europe right now?

Attributing the Western European population stagnation to something like Gay Marriage has to be the dumbest, most idiotic idea ever conceived on this forum -- or at least in the top ten. Do some research before you post stuff like that.

[afleitch]

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.

For those people you have met, who you consider to be born gay, does it really matter to you if they get married? If they have a little family wedding like everyone else, move to a house, work and go on vacation every year and grow old together what, to you, are they doing to society? What are they damaging? What are they cheapening?

The Netherlands have had gay marriage for 7 years now and life simply goes on. Gay and straights still marry (and still divorce). The state isn't allowing people to marry their cat or letting people have 6 wives. The 'slope' isn't slippery. It's not slippery in Belgium either, or Spain or even in South Africa.

How is the population outlook in Europe right now?

Denser than the United States of America.

Sure about that?

He is technically correct.

So you think gay marriage disencourages people to have children? If we want to make these tenuous 'links' then what about this: Considering the Netherlands has a significantly lower teen pregnancy rate than your home state what do you think that could say about marriage in the Netherlands in comparison to Georgia?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

According to Wikipedia the United States of America has the 180th Greatest Population density among terriorities and countries of the world, with an average of 31 person per square kilometer. While I can't find a general EU figure, there are only two EU member states below the United States in this regard, Sweden and Finland. Two countries where vast swathes of national terriority are near uninhabitable. EDIT: Oops sorry, there is a third though it is just below the United States, that is Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

I don't see why it is a bad thing that Europe's population is declining anyway except in regards to a would be pensions mess.

And needless to say, the decline has nothing to do with Gay Marriage anyway.

[afleitch]

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.

For those people you have met, who you consider to be born gay, does it really matter to you if they get married? If they have a little family wedding like everyone else, move to a house, work and go on vacation every year and grow old together what, to you, are they doing to society? What are they damaging? What are they cheapening?

The Netherlands have had gay marriage for 7 years now and life simply goes on. Gay and straights still marry (and still divorce). The state isn't allowing people to marry their cat or letting people have 6 wives. The 'slope' isn't slippery. It's not slippery in Belgium either, or Spain or even in South Africa.

How is the population outlook in Europe right now?

Attributing the Western European population stagnation to something like Gay Marriage has to be the dumbest, most idiotic idea ever conceived on this forum -- or at least in the top ten. Do some research before you post stuff like that.

Iam just asking the question, iam not suggesting anything.   You are pulling your attack pistol out too fast.  Slow your role dude.

Then why ask it? Why not simply answer the question put to you?

[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.

[Flying Dog]

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.

For those people you have met, who you consider to be born gay, does it really matter to you if they get married? If they have a little family wedding like everyone else, move to a house, work and go on vacation every year and grow old together what, to you, are they doing to society? What are they damaging? What are they cheapening?

The Netherlands have had gay marriage for 7 years now and life simply goes on. Gay and straights still marry (and still divorce). The state isn't allowing people to marry their cat or letting people have 6 wives. The 'slope' isn't slippery. It's not slippery in Belgium either, or Spain or even in South Africa.

How is the population outlook in Europe right now?

Attributing the Western European population stagnation to something like Gay Marriage has to be the dumbest, most idiotic idea ever conceived on this forum -- or at least in the top ten. Do some research before you post stuff like that.

Iam just asking the question, iam not suggesting anything.   You are pulling your attack pistol out too fast.  Slow your role dude.

Come on, I can connect the dots. Like Afleitch said, why pose the question then?