Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Alcon]

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.

I don't think you're far out on this issue at all.  In fact, the universalized civil unions thing is probably left of the center.  I don't want to downplay that, but like I've said a few times, I'm a pretty concrete moralist on this issue.  It's hard for me to be enthusiastic about compromise, in the same way it's hard for me to be more enthusiastic about being kicked in the foot than the face.  (lol migraine analogy)

The only thing that even suggests reactionary view on this from you is your keep saying there is plenty to bash the gay lifestyle on...I don't know what's up with that, and I don't know if I want to.

My last post was mostly just to clarify my position on the miscegenation issue, so I guess I'll re-ask this, here:  Why do you consider the data to be "underdeveloped"?  At what point would you change your mind?

I also would appreciate your thoughts on my contention that there's not much historical precedent for marriage as a reproductive institution, but rather economic.  (And I'm also curious if you have any sympathies toward the idea of getting government out of marriage, letting churches handle that, and giving universal civil unions.)

[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?

[Matt Damon™]

Mike Keller, why do you continue on with this? It's been over 30 pages and you've convinced nobody. Why not just cut your losses and give up?

[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.

[jamestroll]

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.

When we all have civil unions, eventually Keller will open up his mind to gay marriage.

I support gay marriage. but I really do not get the passion people have to that issue.

[Earth]

 So far the jury is still out on same sex couples raising children.

The only jury that's out is the legality of it nationwide. Unless you grant gays the option to legally adopt without making it a giant hassle, there's almost no other 'evidence' to go by, which seems silly in light of you constantly referring to evidence you never use in your argument.

[MK]

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.

[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.

[Alcon]

One thing to add to your ABC post:   Sometimes during debates you use your smaller missiles at the beginning.  

I'm not sure what you mean.

As for your question on changing my mind in the face of data.. of course I would.  When the facts change you have to change your mind.  So far the jury is still out on same sex couples raising children. To be honest with you its a key in the whole debate. Give it time.. that's why I support the same sex adoptions.

You support same-sex adoptions, but oppose gay marriage on the grounds that you're not convinced that gays can raise children?

I disagree on you saying there isn't much historical precedent for marriage as a reproductive institution" Its been a key cog in the machine that is our society.

Well, reproduction has always been a part of marriage, no doubt.  But on what basis do you contend it has traditionally been the cornerstone of it?  Like I said, it's not mentioned in vows.  No one has ever been denied the right to marry because they don't want to make children.  It's never been part of any sort of societal agreement regarding marriage, that I know of.  Marriage has usually been economic.

I think the most accurate way of saying it would be:  Marriage has traditionally been a prerequisite of child-rearing, but child-rearing has not necessarily traditionally been a prerequisite of marriage.

I'm open to opposing arguments.  But unless there's proof that gay marriage does harm to the traditional institution, I don't see why it matters.

Now, I have said I favor a civil marriage. Civil union for same sex couples to protect them when it comes to martial rights. The only part Gov should serve is the legal matters of, not forcing people to marry.

"Forcing people to marry"?  You've lost me again.

So, you object to the idea of universal civil unions, and allowing religious institutions to define marriage, or no?

Look guys go back in the thread and look where i said   We have to find alway to open the door, without hitting the folks on other side on the way in.  I meant as in the use of civil unions as a fix to this debate.  

You're still kind of arguing that we should cede moral beliefs to avoid offending others.  As a pragmatic matter (to avoid backlash) I agree, but beyond that, how could I?

[Alcon]

Its social and Economic when it comes to children.

What do you mean?  Its social and economic basis was more in maintaining class distinctions, and matching families along those lines.  Children were encouraged, and children were to be brought up within marriages, but what indication do you have that marriage was required to result in procreation?

Willingly childless couples have not traditionally been looked-down in society, as far as I know.  And even if they were, I have to reiterate:  Unless changing something does damage to an institution, it's an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

Yes, Iam willing to support same sex couples adopting a child.. whats wrong with that?

I'm a bit confused, because you said your reason for opposing gay marriage is that they're unsure about their fitness for raising children.
   

So you are saying civil unions for all non religious marriages?   No I don't like that ideal.

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?

[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.

[Alcon]

I'd have to think more about it....

So, basically you would have to get the stamp of "marriage" by a church?    The others who chose not to be religious or care for churches would get the civil treatment - which would be the same in terms of rights?

Well, the "civil treatment" would be the only treatment the government would give.  Marriage could be a spiritual/religious thing.  Southern Baptists wouldn't have to recognize "gay marriage"; Church of Christ members would be free to.

The government wouldn't have to dictate a definition of "marriage," heterosexual couples wouldn't lose any governmental rights, and homosexual couples wouldn't gain any "special rights."

[Sbane]

Since everbody seems to want to ask me these question on my views.. its time I pose a question.
 
If a gay Man or Woman wanted to be your partner how would you react?   ( This has more important follow up)

Uhh I would say no? Just like any other normal straight person would do. BTW you still haven't answered my question on who gets harmed by same sex marriage.

[MK]

Since everbody seems to want to ask me these question on my views.. its time I pose a question.
 
If a gay Man or Woman wanted to be your partner how would you react?   ( This has more important follow up)

Uhh I would say no? Just like any other normal straight person would do. BTW you still haven't answered my question on who gets harmed by same sex marriage.

So gays are not the norm?

[Alcon]

Since everbody seems to want to ask me these question on my views.. its time I pose a question.
 
If a gay Man or Woman wanted to be your partner how would you react?   ( This has more important follow up)

Uhh I would say no? Just like any other normal straight person would do. BTW you still haven't answered my question on who gets harmed by same sex marriage.

So gays are not the norm?

I don't think he said that, but if my "norm" you mean "most people," no.  Define "normal"?

If a gay person asked me to be their life-long partner, I'd be flattered but a little concerned...I'm straight, and I'd expect anyone who knew me well enough to want to be my partner would understand that.

Either way, I'd probably react about the same way I would if a girl asked me to when I was already in a LTR, except without the third party involvement.  Basically, flattered I guess, wouldn't work out, you know that, so why are you asking?.

Don't see a reason to react any other way.  Are we going somewhere with this?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

Except that it isn't because you would be downgrading existing marriages (or voiding them and replacing them with something regarded as inferior). Or at least, that's how it would be seen.

[Earth]

If a gay Man or Woman wanted to be your partner how would you react?   ( This has more important follow up)

You do realize that gay men don't just go up to one another and say "Do you want to my partner?" You're making no sense.

[Alcon]

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.

Except that it isn't because you would be downgrading existing marriages (or voiding them and replacing them with something regarded as inferior). Or at least, that's how it would be seen.

...which is kind of a weird view in light of the basic intent of civil unions being establishing government equality, innit? (when it is.)

I'm aware that will probably never get passed in reality, but it's a nice place to meet for common-ground in theoretical Internet cyberweb debates.

[Sbane]

Since everbody seems to want to ask me these question on my views.. its time I pose a question.
 
If a gay Man or Woman wanted to be your partner how would you react?   ( This has more important follow up)

Uhh I would say no? Just like any other normal straight person would do. BTW you still haven't answered my question on who gets harmed by same sex marriage.

So gays are not the norm?

A normal straight person would say no. Is that so hard to get? Again I don't have to make a CHOICE to be gay or straight...don't know about you. I instinctively like girls. And if a gay person were to hit on me I would tell them I am straight and the situation would be resolved. In fact it happened to one of my friends who decided to attend the gay rights parade with a few of his girlfriends and some gay guys tagged along. After the parade they hit up a bar and one of the guys tried to kiss him lol. No asking just straight up tried to kiss him. So yeah....very embarrassing for both but no harm done.

[MK]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

[Alcon]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

interesting how, out of curiosity?

[Sbane]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

Uh did I react weirdly or "interestingly"?

[MK]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

interesting how, out of curiosity?

Wanted to see if you really had rejections about homosexuals and if so why.  You clearly support the gay rights cause.

[Earth]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

Your question makes no sense. At all. If one is not gay, then what do you think would happen if they were approached by this gay character you dreamed up and asked if they'll be his partner?

[Alcon]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

interesting how, out of curiosity?

Wanted to see if you really had rejections about homosexuals and if so why.  You clearly support the gay rights cause.

i don't get what else there is to do.  It's the same way I'd react if some girl who be knew me walked up and asked me.  Or if some girl who knew I wasn't relationshippable (for whatever reason) asked.  I'd consider it a wtf-y compliment.

what other reaction is there?  "yes, let's have a loveless gay relationship, it's always been my dream!"?  fisticuffs?