4/11/2013 3:20 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
You told me that one could argue that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.  I figured you might have an argument on why you thought that could be argued.
Can two men reproduce?

Argument made.
Fine.  It's a poor one, but it's an argument.
That would be your opinion.    Much like those who believe the purpose of marriage is to reproduce.

But I understand why you don't understand that.   You can't imagine anyone having a differing opinion on homosexuality. 
4/11/2013 3:23 PM
Allowing gay marriage doesn't defeat the purpose of marriage any more than allowing sterile marriage.
4/11/2013 3:47 PM
Biz - 

Yes, a SSM would be "different" but I'm arguing it wouldn't be a lesser marriage.  Just like an interracial marriage would be "different" but it wouldn't be a lesser marriage.  And yes, I understand that SSM is different because it's not legal everywhere, but if you haven't noticed, I'm sorta arguing that it should be.

And that's strange.  I generally prefer cheeseburgers over hot dogs.  You're a pretty complex individual since that question seemed to require a 300 word answer without you telling me what you prefer.
4/11/2013 3:48 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
You told me that one could argue that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.  I figured you might have an argument on why you thought that could be argued.
Can two men reproduce?

Argument made.
Fine.  It's a poor one, but it's an argument.
That would be your opinion.    Much like those who believe the purpose of marriage is to reproduce.

But I understand why you don't understand that.   You can't imagine anyone having a differing opinion on homosexuality. 
If those same people told me that old people and infertile people couldn't get married, their logic would make sense.  I feel like that isn't the case, though.

As stated, I do have an understanding on arguments counter to mine.
4/11/2013 3:51 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Biz - 

Yes, a SSM would be "different" but I'm arguing it wouldn't be a lesser marriage.  Just like an interracial marriage would be "different" but it wouldn't be a lesser marriage.  And yes, I understand that SSM is different because it's not legal everywhere, but if you haven't noticed, I'm sorta arguing that it should be.

And that's strange.  I generally prefer cheeseburgers over hot dogs.  You're a pretty complex individual since that question seemed to require a 300 word answer without you telling me what you prefer.
Also, you telling me that someone's sexual preference is not pre-determined makes arguing this with you almost impossible.  I prefer women.  Always have.  I didn't determine which sex I prefer.
4/11/2013 3:56 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
You told me that one could argue that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.  I figured you might have an argument on why you thought that could be argued.
Can two men reproduce?

Argument made.
Fine.  It's a poor one, but it's an argument.
That would be your opinion.    Much like those who believe the purpose of marriage is to reproduce.

But I understand why you don't understand that.   You can't imagine anyone having a differing opinion on homosexuality. 
If those same people told me that old people and infertile people couldn't get married, their logic would make sense.  I feel like that isn't the case, though.

As stated, I do have an understanding on arguments counter to mine.
I honestly don't think you do.   Sort of like a blinders thing.
4/11/2013 4:01 PM
I get the arguments.

That people are uncomfortable with change.  
That it makes for a different "family."  
That they won't raise children as well.
That we're being oversensitive to people's desires.  
That we're being a ***** country because of a liberal agenda.
That homosexuality is a sin, and bad.
That homosexuality is a disease and could be cured.
That it encourages homosexual tendencies.  
That marriage is sacred, and gay marriage is not what God intended.

I understand the arguments.  I think the arguments are very flawed.  Did I miss any?

4/11/2013 4:15 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 4:01:00 PM (view original):
I get the arguments.

That people are uncomfortable with change.  
That it makes for a different "family."  
That they won't raise children as well.
That we're being oversensitive to people's desires.  
That we're being a ***** country because of a liberal agenda.
That homosexuality is a sin, and bad.
That homosexuality is a disease and could be cured.
That it encourages homosexual tendencies.  
That marriage is sacred, and gay marriage is not what God intended.

I understand the arguments.  I think the arguments are very flawed.  Did I miss any?

I submit that you don't understand any of them simply because you believe it's an undeniable right to marry the one you love.  

We already place restrictions on marriage.   You just don't like the "one man/one woman" restriction.
4/11/2013 4:20 PM
There's nothing wrong with having restrictions on marriage as long as those restrictions serve a purpose. If allowing gay marriage causes no harm, what's the purpose in restricting it?
4/11/2013 4:22 PM
I do understand them.  I don't think it's an undeniable right to marry anyone, as we do put restrictions on marriage.  You can't marry your sister, your father, a 10 year old, a toaster, or an oak tree.  There are solid reasons to restrict marriage in many cases.  I don't think gay marriage is one of them.
4/11/2013 5:14 PM
But many, many people do feel that gay marriage IS one of them.

Just because YOU feel it's not does not necessarily make you right.
4/11/2013 5:21 PM
That's why he's unable to understand any argument against it.   It's just unfathomable in his head.

His basic response has been "There's nothing wrong with gay marriage."

I have no idea why I haven't just repeated "There's nothing right with gay marriage" as a counter.

4/11/2013 5:27 PM
I think equality is a great reason.  That's something right with it.

Do either of you know a gay couple in a serious relationship?
4/11/2013 5:36 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
But many, many people do feel that gay marriage IS one of them.

Just because YOU feel it's not does not necessarily make you right.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the fact that some people feel like gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. The argument is that those objections aren't valid.

See if you can follow:

We don't allow people to marry children for a reason.
We don't allow people to marry dogs for a reason.
We don't allow people to marry their siblings for a reason.
We don't allow gays to marry...why? What's the harm in allowing gays to marry? A definition changing isn't harm in itself, especially when gays are marrying right this very minute and no disasters have rained down on us because of it.
4/11/2013 5:39 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 5:27:00 PM (view original):
I think equality is a great reason.  That's something right with it.

Do either of you know a gay couple in a serious relationship?
Is that a requirement of some sort?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.